The Old Woman, California, IIAB iron meteorite
Howard PLOTKIN1*, Roy S. CLARKE, JR.2, Timothy J. McCOY2, and Catherine M. CORRIGAN2
1Department of Philosophy, University of Western Ontario, London, ON, N6A 3K7, Canada
2Department of Mineral Sciences, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, P.O. Box 37012,
Washington, DC 20013-7012, USA
*Corresponding author. E-mail: hplotkin@rogers.com
(Received 26 May 2011; revision accepted 14 February 2012)
Abstract?The Old Woman meteorite, discovered in March 1976 by two prospectors searching
for a fabled lost Spanish gold mine in mountains 270 km east of Los Angeles, has achieved
the status of a legend among meteorite hunters and collectors. The question of the ownership
of the 2753 kg group IIAB meteorite, the second largest ever found in the United States
(3428?N, 11514?W), gave rise to disputes involving the ?nders, the Bureau of Land
Management, the Secretary of the Department of the Interior, the State of California, the
California members of the U.S. Congress, various museums in California, the Smithsonian
Institution, and the Department of Justice. Ultimately, ownership of the meteorite was
transferred to the Smithsonian under the powers of the 1906 Antiquities Act, a ruling upheld
in a U.S. District Court and a U.S. Court of Appeals. After additional debate, the
Smithsonian removed a large cut for study and curation, and for disbursement of specimens
to quali?ed researchers. The main mass was then returned to California on long-term loan to
the Bureau of Land Management?s Desert Discovery Center in Barstow. The Old Woman
meteorite litigation served as an important test case for the ownership and control of
meteorites found on federal lands. The Old Woman meteorite appears to be structurally
unique in containing both hexahedral and coarsest octahedral structures in the same mass,
unique oriented schreibersites within hexahedral areas, and polycrystalline parent austenite
crystals. These structures suggest that different portions of the meteorite may have
transformed via different mechanisms upon subsolidus cooling, making the large slices of Old
Woman promising targets for future research.
DISCOVERY OF THE METEORITE
The Old Woman meteorite was found in March 1976
by two prospectors, Mike Jendruczak and David
Friburg, high up the wash of a canyon in the Old
Woman Mountains in the Mojave Desert, some 270 km
east of Los Angeles, while searching for a lost Spanish
Conquistador gold mine rumored to be there (Fig. 1). As
they struggled up one of the steep canyons on the
mountainside, Jendruczak spotted a large 0.8 by 0.9 by
1.0 m dark-colored rock which stood out noticeably
from all the light tan- and gray-colored boulders (Fig. 2).
As he later recalled (Alexander 1977): ??I tapped it, and
right away I knew what it was. I?d seen pictures of
meteorites in school and I?ve seen them in museums. So I
was pretty sure it was a meteorite.??
Over the next few months, the two prospectors and
their partner Jack Harwood (who was not present the
day the meteorite was found) tried to ?gure out what to
do with their ??Lucky Nugget?? ?nd. They thought about
selling the meteorite to a university or museum, but ?rst
it would have to be moved from the mountains. They
contemplated hiring a commercial helicopter to do this,
and making a documentary ?lm of the experience which
they could then sell to television networks. But they
lacked the funds needed to hire a helicopter.
To ensure that their ?nd was indeed a meteorite,
they removed a few small chips, and sent one to the
Grif?th Observatory in Los Angeles for veri?cation. It
was examined there by Ronald Oriti, the curator of the
observatory?s meteorite collection, who tested it for
nickel. For reasons which are unclear, he did not detect
 The Meteoritical Society, 2012.929
Meteoritics & Planetary Science 47, Nr 5, 929?946 (2012)
doi: 10.1111/j.1945-5100.2012.01348.x
Ni, and therefore concluded that the specimen was not
meteoritic.
While the testing at the Grif?th Observatory was
being undertaken, Friberg sent a letter to the
Smithsonian on August 16, asking ??if you could give us
a value scale for something of this nature & who we
might contact to market it?? (Friberg 1976). In Meteorite
Curator Roy S. Clarke Jr.?s absence (he was out of the
country on vacation at the time), Edward P. Henderson,
the Curator Emeritus of Meteorites, replied by telegram
on August 27 that ??Photo shows you probably have an
iron meteorite. We are interested. Letter follows??
(Henderson 1976). That same day, Division of
Meteorites Specialist Al Noonan wrote Friberg to say
that its monetary value depended on its type and
condition, and requested a fragment be sent to the
Smithsonian for study. Friberg sent a small specimen
(now cataloged, along with the main mass, as USNM
5924) on August 30, and on September 10 Clarke wrote
him, saying that ??your specimen is certainly a meteorite.
I would like very much to conduct an on the site
investigation at the earliest possible date?? (Clarke 1976a).
TRIP TO THE OLD WOMAN MOUNTAINS
Clarke quickly made arrangements with Friberg for
a trip to California to investigate the meteorite. Before
leaving Washington, he learned that much of the land
near Twentynine Palms, where he was to meet Friberg,
was under the control of various U.S. Government
agencies. Since the ownership of meteorites depends on
the ownership of the land on which they fall or are
found, Clarke realized it was crucial to determine
whether or not the meteorite was located on land in the
public domain. On the morning of September 20, he met
with Friberg and Harwood, and plans were made to
leave early the next morning to visit the site of the
meteorite. He then visited the administrative of?ce of the
nearby Joshua Tree National Monument to inform
of?cials there of his visit. There was also another reason
why Clarke wanted to contact government of?cials prior
to going into the ?eld: ??I was going into a remote area
Fig. 2. The Old Woman meteorite as it appeared when it was
found in March 1976 high up the wash of a canyon in the Old
Woman Mountains. The photo was taken in late September,
1976, during Smithsonian Meteorite Curator Roy S. Clarke
Jr.?s ?rst visit to the ?nd site.
Fig. 1. Map of the region in which the Old Woman meteorite
was found. The square box in the top map shows the general
area where the Old Woman meteorite was found in mountains
in the Mojave Desert, while the blow-up box shows the
meteorite?s ?nd location in the Old Woman Mountains.
930 H. Plotkin et al.
where I had no previous experience and with individuals
whom I did not know. I wanted responsible government
of?cials to know of this in case of trouble?? (Clarke
1978b).
On September 21, Clarke, Friberg, and Harwood
travelled to the site of the meteorite in a 1949 four-wheel
drive Power Wagon. A good part of the trip was cross
country, and they did not arrive at the ?nders? base
camp at the foot of the mountain until 2:00 p.m. It took
over 2 h of strenuous hiking up the mountain to reach
the meteorite. Once there, Clarke took a series of
measurements and photographs. Although he felt very
pressed for time, he saw all he needed. On their part,
Friberg and Harwood pressed him on how much the
meteorite was worth. The group left the meteorite at
5:40, and reached base camp at 7:00 p.m., just as
darkness set in (Clarke 1976d). Clarke later recalled that
it was perhaps the most beautiful night sky he had ever
seen.
Clarke suspected the meteorite was on land under
the control of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM),
and on September 23 and 24, he visited the Riverside
BLM of?ce and informed them of the presence of a large
iron meteorite in the Old Woman Mountains. He also
told them that the Smithsonian wanted the meteorite if
in fact it was located on federal property. Clarke
suggested that he go back to the site with Friberg and
BLM of?cials to determine its exact location. He
telephoned Friberg, who agreed to meet them at a
rendezvous point early on September 27 for a return
visit. After returning to Twentynine Palms, Clarke spent
the next day in an unsuccessful attempt to trace the
mining claim the ?nders said they had placed on the
meteorite.
On the 27th, Clarke went to the BLM of?ce early in
the morning, and with two BLM of?cials drove to the
airport for a helicopter pick up. They ?ew to the agreed
upon rendezvous point, a road crossing in the desert, but
there was no one there; no person, no car?just road,
dirt, and dried grass. After circling around to be sure,
they ?ew to Harwood?s house at Twentynine Palms to
see if Friburg was there. But again, there were no
indications of life. They then ?ew out to the Old Woman
Mountains, where Clarke led them to the meteorite.
They found it without much dif?culty, and were able to
land on a nearby ridge. Time was again limited, but they
were able to more positively identify the meteorite?s
position. After establishing its exact location on maps
(3428?N, 11514?W) and checking appropriate records,
the BLM determined that the meteorite was in fact on
federal property (Clarke 1978b).
On October 1, Gerald Hillier, the District Manager
of the Riverside BLM of?ce, wrote to Friberg to inform
him that on the basis of the September 27 trip, it was
determined that the meteorite ??is in fact located on
national resource lands (Public Domain) owned by
the United States.?? Furthermore, ??it is considered an
object of antiquity or of scienti?c interest and as such
comes under the protection of the Antiquities Act of
1906 ? [This law] reserve[s] the jurisdiction and control
of such objects as found on government land to
the Federal Government?? (Hillier 1976). Clarke wrote
Friberg explaining that he was aware ??? this is not the
interpretation that you were hoping to receive. It does
not surprise me, however, and I tried to prepare you for
it?? (Clarke 1976b). On the very day Clarke wrote this
letter, he found out that the reason why Friberg hadn?t
shown up on the morning of September 27 as agreed was
that he had gone to see a lawyer (Clarke 1976c). This set
the stage for events that would embroil the meteorite in
several years of heated disputes and make the meteorite
one of the most controversial in the modern era
(Table 1).
THE QUESTION OF THE METEORITE?S
OWNERSHIP
The ownership of meteorites has often been
a controversial issue, one that has been litigated in
celebrated court cases in the United States and
elsewhere. In the United States, the courts have held that
meteorites typically belong to the owner of the land on
which they fall or are found, not the ?nders. Precedent
was set in 1892 in the case of the Forest City meteorite,
when the Iowa Supreme Court upheld the landowner
Goddard over Winchell, who had been sold the
meteorite by the ?nder. This was followed in 1905 by
the case of the Willamette meteorite, the largest found in
the United States, when the Oregon Supreme Court
upheld the landowner Oregon Iron Company over the
?nder Hughes (Schmitt 2002). Since the Old Woman
meteorite had been found on federal land, the
Antiquities Act vested ownership in the federal
government, not in the ?nders.
In an attempt to gain control of the meteorite, the
?nders ?led a placer mining claim on the land where it
was situated. But they were noti?ed by the District
Manager of the Riverside BLM in early October that
??Your mining claim ? authorizes the removal of only
locatable minerals. Meteorites are not locatable since
objects of this nature do not constitute a valuable
mineral deposit within the meaning of the United States?
mining laws?? (Hillier 1976). Precedent for this had been
established as early as 1908, in the case of an alleged 91
metric ton meteorite found on federal land in the
Washington Forest Reserve, when the Chief, Forest
Service, ruled that ??A placer location made for the sole
purpose of embracing the area where such meteorite may
The Old Woman IIAB iron meteorite 931
be would not be valid, if the ground contained no other
value than the meteorite?? (Ringland 1908).
Such a ruling had been af?rmed in 1944, when
Smithsonian Curator Henderson enquired if its
acquisition of the Drum Mountains meteorite, found by
Japanese-Americans interned on federal lands in the
Utah desert, could be contested under a mining claim.
The Assistant Secretary of the Department of the
Interior informed him that if meteorites have a market
value only for the reason that they are meteorites and
not because of their mineral content, they are not subject
to mining laws (Chapman 1944). Accordingly, the BLM
District Manager told the ?nders of the Old Woman
meteorite that under the powers of the Antiquities Act,
the jurisdiction and control of the meteorite would be
transferred to the Smithsonian Institution (Hillier 1976).
Since ownership of the meteorite was granted to the
Smithsonian under the powers of the Antiquities Act, a
ruling that was subsequently vigorously contested, it will
be useful to examine in some detail exactly how this Act
applied. Passed by the 59th Congress on June 8, 1906,
the main purpose of the Antiquities Act (34 Stat. L., 225)
was to protect archeological sites in the American
southwest from looting. The act gave the Secretaries of
the Departments of the Interior, Agriculture, and War
the right to grant permits for the examination of ruins,
the excavation of sites, and the gatherings of ??objects of
historic or scienti?c interest?? on federal lands under their
respective jurisdictions. Permits could be granted to
scienti?c or educational institutions which they deemed
properly quali?ed, provided that the gatherings of these
objects be for permanent preservation in public
museums.
On December 28, 1906, the three secretaries
prescribed further rules to carry out the provisions of the
act. Among other things, these Uniform Rules and
Regulations granted the secretaries not only the right to
grant permits for the gathering of objects of historic or
scienti?c interest, but jurisdiction over the objects as
well. Furthermore, it stipulated that all permits granted
by the secretaries ??shall be referred to the Smithsonian
Institution for recommendation.??
Table 1. Abbreviated chronology of important dates in the Old Woman meteorite controversy, 1976?1980
March, 1976 Old Woman meteorite found.
September 21, 1976 R. S. Clarke Jr. visits site.
October 1, 1976 BLM informs ?nders meteorite is on federal land.
November 4, 1976 Smithsonian formally requests BLM to transfer meteorite to it.
December 21, 1976 Dept. of Interior grants Smithsonian?s request.
May 5, 1977 Dept. of Defense grants U.S. Marines authorization to airlift meteorite from mountain.
June 17, 1977 Meteorite airlifted from mountain.
June 24, 1977 Old Woman meteorite accessioned into Smithsonian?s National Collection.
June 29, 1977 Finders ?le request in Federal District Court for temporary restraining order to keep meteorite in
California.
July 20, 1977 San Bernardino County Museum and State of California ?le suits in Federal District Court
against removal of meteorite from California.
August 22, 1977 Suit brought by ?nders dismissed with prejudice.
September 7, 1977 Sec. of Interior announces meteorite will stay in California.
Sept.?Nov., 1977 Representatives from Smithsonian, Dept. of Interior, and State of California attempt to reach
agreement on how meteorite could be exhibited in designated institution there.
December 27, 1977 Suits brought by San Bernardino County Museum and State of California denied.
March 8, 1978 Old Woman meteorite arrives at Smithsonian for study and cutting.
May 1978 San Bernardino County Museum and State of California appeal denial of their suits.
July 1978 San Bernardino County Museum and State of California seek injunction from Federal District
Court enjoining Smithsonian from cutting meteorite until ruling from U.S. Court of Appeals
handed down.
August 23, 1978 Injunction sought by San Bernardino County Museum and State of California denied. This
decision is appealed.
March 23, 1979 Smithsonian drafts formal loan agreement to display meteorite at BLM way station in Barstow,
California for 3 years.
April 2, 1979 Injunction sought by San Bernardino County Museum and State of California again denied.
June 5, 1979 First piece, weighing 4.66 kg, removed from meteorite.
May 9, 1980 First big cut, 427.3 kg, completed.
May 15, 1980 U.S. Court of Appeals upholds Federal District Court?s decision against San Bernardino County
Museum and State of California.
September 27, 1980 Old Woman meteorite placed on exhibit at BLM?s Desert Discovery Center in Barstow,
California.
932 H. Plotkin et al.
Two things are important to bear in mind here.
First, although meteorites were not speci?cally
mentioned in the Antiquities Act, they were considered
to fall under its purview since they were considered to be
??objects of scienti?c interest.?? Second, since the BLM
was under the Department of the Interior, the Act
granted the Secretary of the Department of the Interior
jurisdiction over any meteorites found on its land. Since
the Old Woman meteorite had been found on BLM land,
it fell under his jurisdiction.
In the case of the Old Woman meteorite, there thus
seemed little question that jurisdiction and control of it
could be transferred to the Smithsonian under the powers
of the Antiquities Act. The decision to do so, however,
came under heavy ?re from two quarters?from lawyers in
San Bernardino, California representing the ?nders, and
from John Wasson, a professor of geochemistry and
chemistry at the University of California, Los Angeles
(UCLA). Wasson had been sent a small specimen of
the meteorite in early October 1976 through Bekins
Mineral Resources in Altadena, California, a company
that worked with prospectors, and was apparently helping
to ?nance the three prospectors in their endeavors.
Wasson had determined that the specimen was a genuine
meteorite, and with his colleague John Willis quickly
prepared a talk to be given at the Meteoritical Society
meeting in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania later that month
(Wasson and Willis 1976). In discussion with Clarke,
Wasson made it clear that he wanted the meteorite to
remain in California. On November 4, 1976, Smithsonian
Secretary S. Dillon Ripley formally requested the State
Director of the BLM in Sacramento that the meteorite be
transferred to the Smithsonian and accessioned into the
NationalMeteorite Collection (Ripley 1976).
In mid November, Wasson wrote Clarke to suggest
that the meteorite be cut, and a ??representative sample
(say 5?10%)?? be transferred to the Smithsonian, with the
main mass remaining in California?preferably at UCLA,
or if that was not possible, at the Los Angeles County
Museum of Natural History or the Grif?th Observatory
(Wasson 1976a). Wasson also wrote the two California
senators, Alan Cranston (Wasson 1976b) and John
Tunney (Wasson 1976c), requesting their help in keeping
the meteorite in southern California. He pointed out that
if the meteorite was transferred to Washington, the great
majority of California residents would never be able to see
it, and that Californians had recently ??lost?? the Goose
Lake meteorite, which had been found on federal land in
the Modoc National Forest in northeast California, to the
Smithsonian. Wasson noted that ??as I see it, the main
question is of a political rather than legal nature ? It was
surely not the intention of the congress [in passing the
Antiquities Act] that all meteorites found on government
lands should be exhibited ? in Washington rather than
exhibited in the other ?ne public institutions of this
country.?? Wasson?s letters served as a catalyst, and played
a role in the state of California?s entry into the dispute.
On December 21, the Director of Administrative
Services, Of?ce of the Secretary of the Department of the
Interior, responded to Secretary Ripley?s request, and
granted the necessary authorization: ??By this letter you
are authorized and permitted to begin operations for the
recovery of the Old Woman Mountains meteorite and
for its transfer to the Smithsonian Institution where it
will be available for scienti?c study and public
exhibition?? (Carpenter 1976).
With proper authorization from theDepartment of the
Interior, the Smithsonian moved forward with plans to
remove themeteorite from themountainside and transfer it
to Washington. Realizing that there was a Marine Corps
base at Twentynine Palms, some 80 km from the site,
Smithsonian of?cials focused on the idea of having themdo
the transport by helicopter. They responded that they could
do the job, but needed authorization from the Secretary of
Defense to undertake it. On January 11, 1977 Secretary
Ripley wrote the Secretary, Donald H. Rumsfeld, seeking
the necessary authorization (Ripley 1977a).Unfortunately,
the request was made at the time the Ford Administration
was transitioning to the Carter Administration, and the
carefully prepared groundwork was ignored. As a
consequence, the reply from the Assistant Secretary denied
authorization on the grounds that Department of Defense
did not utilize military transport when commercial carriers
able to do the job were available (Riley 1977). A tense
severalmonths of seeking alternatives ensued.
In April, Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater, a
Regent of the Smithsonian, wrote the new Secretary of
Defense, Harold Brown, repeating the request for
military assistance, pointing out that the only private
helicopter service capable of carrying out the transfer
was in Oregon, so far distant from southern California
that the Smithsonian couldn?t afford its services
(Goldwater 1977). This was followed a week later by
a similar letter from Secretary Ripley (1977b). These
letters proved successful, and the Deputy Secretary of
Defense granted authorization for the Marines to remove
the meteorite from the mountain (Dumauf 1977). Plans
were drawn up for the Marines to airlift the meteorite on
June 17, following which it would be put on display at
the BLM?s Riverside of?ce for 2 weeks, and then shipped
to the Smithsonian for study.
REMOVAL OF THE METEORITE FROM THE
MOUNTAIN
Clarke arrived back in California on June 13, 1977
and spent the next few days at the Riverside BLM of?ce,
where joint preparations with BLM and U.S. Marine
The Old Woman IIAB iron meteorite 933
Corps representatives were made for removing the
meteorite and accommodating the press. On the
afternoon of the 15th, Clarke and the BLM group
moved to Needles to be nearer the ?eld site, and arrived
on the mountain by helicopter the next day to confer
with BLM representatives and the Marine Corps detail,
and observe the lift (Clarke 1977b) (Fig. 3).
Moving the meteorite was a major operation. On the
morning of June 16, a seven-man helicopter support
team from the First Marine Division Landing Support
Co. at Camp Pendleton was ?own in to the foot of the
mountain. After a trek of 2 1 ?2 h up the dry wash, the
team reached the meteorite. Shortly after their arrival, a
helicopter from the Marine Heavy Helicopter Squadron
363 lowered a bundle to them containing cargo nets,
hydraulic jacks, timbers, water, and C-rations. For the
next several hours, the Marine riggers used the jacks and
timbers to wrestle the meteorite free from where it was
wedged between two boulders, and slip a double
thickness of cargo net under it (Fig. 4). They then sought
a shady place amongst the boulders to bed down for the
night (Navy Times 1977). On the following morning, one
of the Squadron?s CH-53 helicopters dropped a 25 m
cable down to the Marines, who attached it to the
bundled meteorite. The helicopter then carefully lifted
the meteorite from its resting place, and gently set it
down a short time later on a desert road 19 km away
(Evans 1977) (Fig. 5).
Present on the road were more than 40 representatives
of local and national news media, members of the
press, representatives from the Riverside BLM of?ce,
Marines, the meteorite?s three ?nders, and Wasson
(Clarke and BLM representative Joe Gulliksen arrived
from their vantage point on the mountain some time
after the meteorite arrived). According to a newspaper
account of the event (Alexander 1977), an uneasy scene
developed as the crowd gathered around the meteorite,
and opposing views about the meteorite?s ownership and
disposition were strongly voiced. But with proper
authorization from the Department of the Interior, the
meteorite was fork lifted onto a truck and transported to
the BLM District Of?ce in Riverside. Clarke spent the
following 3 days in Riverside, engaging in conversations
with visitors to the exhibit and members of the press, and
conferring with BLM representatives.
At a weigh station en route, the meteorite was taken
off the truck and weighed; at 2753 kg, it was the second-
largest meteorite ever found in the United States (after
Willamette). Removed from the truck and away from
the crowd that had earlier been gathered around it, the
Old Woman meteorite could be carefully observed in
its entirety for the ?rst time. The meteorite?s mass is
semi-equant with an irregular surface, measuring
0.8 ? 0.9 ? 1.0 m. Its exposed upper surface when found
exhibited a relatively smooth texture on one side, while
the other side was pitted reminiscent of regmaglypts.
Superimposed on this pitted surface were cylindrical
indentations probably formed by preferential ablation of
Fig. 3. Roy S. Clarke Jr. with the Old Woman meteorite
during his return visit to the ?nd site to witness the meteorite?s
removal from the mountains on June 17, 1977. By then, the
meteorite had been moved slightly by its ?nders from its
original position. Photo credit: Joe Goodwin.
Fig. 4. Riggers from the First Marine Division Landing
Support Co. at Camp Pendleton use jacks and timber to
maneuver the meteorite so that a double thickness of cargo net
can be placed under it and it can be airlifted by helicopter from
the mountains. The photo was taken by Joe Goodwin at 3:00
p.m. on June 16, 1977.
934 H. Plotkin et al.
a less resistant phase, and subsequently enlarged and
deepened by weathering produced during pooling of
rainwater. When the meteorite was moved, the bottom
surface, which had been in contact with soil, exhibited a
thin, irregular coating of caliche.
THE DISPUTE MOVES TO THE COURTS
Far from settling the issue, the removal of the
meteorite from the Old Woman Mountains only served
to intensify the battle over it. In June, letters to the
Smithsonian from Wasson (Wasson 1977) and the San
Bernardino County Museum (Smith 1977) requested that
the meteorite be put on permanent exhibition in
California, and California Congresswoman Shirley
Pettis, the Representative of the district where the
meteorite had been found, requested that either the
entire meteorite or a portion of it be housed in a museum
in her district (Pettis 1977). Clarke accessioned the
meteorite into the Smithsonian?s National Collection on
June 24, while it was still on display in California (Clarke
1977a).
By now, the Old Woman meteorite had become
something of a cause ce?le`bre, and hundreds of persons
came to see it at the Riverside BLM of?ce (Fig. 6). To
provide an additional opportunity for more persons
to see it, the Smithsonian and the BLM agreed on plans
to continue its display there for an additional week, and
then to have it placed on display for 1 week each at the
San Bernardino County Museum and the Los Angeles
County Museum of Natural History. After these display
periods, the meteorite would be returned to the BLM
Riverside of?ce, then shipped to the Smithsonian.
Before the agreed-upon return date arrived,
however, the three ?nders took the matter to court.
Before Judge Francis Whelan in the Federal District
Court in Los Angeles, they ?led a suit on June 29, 1977
against the BLM, the Department of the Interior,
Secretary Ripley, et al., requesting a temporary
restraining order to keep the meteorite in California,
arguing they owned it on the basis of their mining claim.
The Smithsonian and the Department of the Interior
were represented in the suit by the Department of
Justice. Judge Whelan denied the temporary restraining
order, claiming that there was no immediate and
irreparable harm warranting the issuance of such an
order. This case would be the ?rst of several that would
ultimately be ?led in the courts.
Increasing pressure was quickly brought to bear
upon the Smithsonian to allow the meteorite to remain
in California. On July 11, Giles Mead, the Director of
the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History,
wrote Secretary Ripley that ??The exploitive removal of
Fig. 5. A CH-53 helicopter from Marine Heavy Helicopter
Squadron 363 begins to lift the meteorite from its resting place
in the Old Woman Mountains on June 17, 1977. The meteorite,
safely bundled in its cargo net cocoon, hangs from the end of a
25 m cable. Photo credit: Joe Goodwin.
Fig. 6. Fascinated children gleefully touch the visitor from
outer space. Hundreds of persons came to see the hotly
contested Old Woman meteorite when it was placed on
temporary exhibit at the Bureau of Land Management District
Of?ce in Riverside, California following its removal from the
mountains. The photo was taken in mid- to late-June, 1977.
The Old Woman IIAB iron meteorite 935
objects from point of origin to institutions thousands of
miles away with arrogant disregard for local argument
and reasonable claim takes on an unpleasant odor. ?
This is not the nineteenth century.?? He went on to
request that the Smithsonian ??cede all presumed title?? to
the meteorite to either his museum, the San Bernardino
County Museum, or UCLA (Mead 1977).
Pressure was also brought to bear upon Cecil
Andrus, the Secretary of the Department of the Interior.
On July 12, the Secretary for Resources for the State of
California wrote Andrus acknowledging ??the probable
legitimacy of the ownership claim of the United States,??
but claiming that the Antiquities Act, ??if applicable at all
to meteorites, clearly allows the display of the Meteorite
in any public museum.?? He therefore suggested that
Andrus ?nd an arrangement whereby the Smithsonian
retained its ownership interest in the meteorite, but
allowed it to go on permanent display in the Los Angeles
County Museum of Natural History (Johnson 1977).
A week later, Ripley received a letter from California
Representative George E. Brown signed by virtually the
entire California Congressional Delegation, urging him
to ??speed arrangements for [the meteorite?s] permanent
display in California?? (Brown 1977). In response, Ripley
assured them that the Smithsonian was ??certainly fully
aware of the interests of the State of California,?? and
that once the museum cut the meteorite for study,
a portion would be sent to an appropriate museum in
California (Ripley 1977d). In addition, the museum
would be sent a cast of the whole meteorite.
At the same time, in a letter to Wasson, Ripley took
pains to make the Smithsonian?s position clear. He
outlined the Smithsonian?s long involvement with
meteorites and the steady growth of the National
Collection, and its extensive usage by the national and
international scienti?c community. He went on to point
out the high quality of the museum?s professional and
support staff, as well as its laboratory and shop facilities.
For these reasons, the Smithsonian ??had a responsibility
to involve itself with the Old Woman Mountains
meteorite.?? But he assured Wasson that the museum was
??certainly mindful of the legitimate interests of the
California institutions, just as we are of our own
national and international obligations,?? and that a
replica of the meteorite and a polished slice would be
sent to an appropriate California museum on a long-
term loan (Ripley 1977c).
On July 20, 1977, the very day that Ripley wrote
Wasson, the San Bernardino County Museum and the
State of California ?led separate suits (later joined) in the
Federal District Court in Los Angeles, against the BLM,
the Department of the Interior, Secretary Ripley, et al.,
seeking a preliminary injunction against removal of the
meteorite from California and title to it, alleging various
statutory violations. Basically, they contended that the
Department of the Interior had violated the Antiquities
Act by discriminating in favor of the Smithsonian in
permitting it to take custody of the meteorite. This time,
the court granted a temporary restraining order to keep
the meteorite in California until such time as it made a
declarative judgment on the question of its ownership. It
requested the parties involved to engage in intensive
settlement discussions to try to work out their
differences.
During the time that the matter was before the
court, the San Bernardino County Museum sent Andrus
a letter similar to the one he had received from the
Secretary for Resources for the State of California,
requesting him to reconsider the decision to place the
meteorite in the Smithsonian, and allow it to be
permanently housed in the San Bernardino museum. On
July 28, Senator Alan Cranston wrote a strong letter to
Andrus, disputing that the Antiquities Act was a viable
legal basis for the federal ??seizure?? of the meteorite, and
suggesting that its removal was ??an affront to common
courtesy and to the desires of countless Californians and
others in the West to retain custody of the meteorite ???
He requested that if the court ruled that the U.S. did
have legal title to the meteorite, Andrus ??forgo
exercising that right and agree to permit the Old Woman
meteorite to remain in California with an appropriate
museaum [sic] or scienti?c institution?? (Cranston 1977).
On August 22, 1977, the Smithsonian received some
welcome news from the Department of Justice attorney
representing the defendants in the June law suit ?led by
the ?nders. Judge Whelan had signed an order dismissing
the suit brought about by the three ?nders of the Old
Woman Mountains meteorite. The suit was dismissed
with prejudice.
When combined with the strong protests being made
by Representative Pettis, the California Congressional
Delegation, the Secretary for Resources for the State of
California, the San Bernardino County Museum, the Los
Angeles County Museum of Natural History, the State
of California, Senator Cranston, Wasson, and others,
Judge Whelan?s ruling quickly prompted a dramatic
move on Secretary Andrus?s part. On September 7, his
of?ce in Washington, D.C. dropped a bombshell:
??California will get to keep the Old Woman Meteorite.
Interior Secretary Cecil D. Andrus decided to grant
custody of the three-ton rock to the state in which it was
found over a year ago, turning down a bid by his own
agency [through the Director of Administrative Services,
Of?ce of the Secretary of the Interior] to [grant Secretary
Ripley authorization to] haul it back to Washington for
display in the Smithsonian Institution?? (Norton 1977).
A short article in the New York Times dated September 8
went on to say that ??Although the meteorite will stay in
936 H. Plotkin et al.
California, it remains the property of the Federal
Government under a 1906 Antiquities Act that the
Interior Department contends gives it custody.??
Andrus?s decision served as a game-changer. Recall
that prior to his announcement, the Department of the
Interior had transferred right and title to the meteorite to
the museum; the suit brought by the ?nders of the
meteorite had been dismissed with prejudice by the
Federal District Court in Los Angeles; and it had been
accessioned into the National Collection of Meteorites.
The Smithsonian believed that it had ownership of the
meteorite, and had formulated plans to keep the main
mass, but had agreed to provide a California museum
with a cast of the meteorite and a polished slice after
conducting its scienti?c study.
Although the Smithsonian did not think Andrus had
legal justi?cation for such a decision at this late stage of
the game, and felt it could have refused to honor his
ruling (Taylor 1981), it made the political decision to
acquiesce, and offered to ship the main mass of the
meteorite?not just a slice??to a California museum after
it had completed its study.
In the weeks that followed, the court-ordered
settlement discussions took place. The Smithsonian
worked with the Department of the Interior and the
Department of Justice to arrive at terms and conditions
upon which an agreement could be implemented between
the Smithsonian and the State of California to exhibit
the meteorite in a designated museum or institution
there. Attorneys from these three parties met on
September 21. On the day following the meeting, the
Smithsonian reported to the Department of Justice that
it agreed to the following stipulations as part of a
proposed consent decree: the United States possesses all
right, title, and interest in the Old Woman meteorite; the
[Of?ce of the] Secretary of the Department of the
Interior acted properly in transferring custody and
control of the meteorite to the Smithsonian under the
Antiquities Act; and the United States will negotiate for
long-term display of the meteorite within the state of
California (Challinor 1977).
In its report to the Department of Justice on
September 28, the Department of the Interior voiced its
support of these stipulations, and stated further that it
had no objection to the Smithsonian?s plan to bring the
meteorite to Washington for a short period of time, not
to exceed 1 year, for scienti?c analysis prior to releasing
it to California. Its only concerns were that the
meteorite?s display and scienti?c value not be diminished
in this process, and that the meteorite be returned as
promptly as possible (Webb 1977).
On October 17, attorneys from the three parties met
again, joined this time by the Deputy Counsel, County of
San Bernardino and an attorney from the California
Attorney General?s Of?ce. In a follow-up letter to the
Department of Justice on November 14, the California
attorneys also agreed with the stipulations set out by the
Smithsonian and agreed to by the Department of the
Interior, but proposed that a ?ve-member committee be
set up, composed of Wasson, Clarke, and three other
members agreed to by the parties. This committee, by
majority vote, would make the ?nal decision ??as to what
cutting, if any?? would be done on the meteorite.
The California attorneys further called for the
establishment of a Joint Powers Agreement, under which
persons from the County of San Bernardino, the County
of Los Angeles, and the Board of Regents of the
University of California would form a three-member
committee. The committee would investigate the
possibility of displaying the meteorite in a museum in
California, and would be authorized to loan the
meteorite to other reputable museums for short-term
displays, while the Joint Powers Agreement would
recognize that the ??permanent home?? of the meteorite
would be in San Bernardino County, where the meteorite
had been found (Younger et al. 1977).
On December 27, 1977, Judge Whelan announced
his decision on the consolidated suit that had been
brought by the State of California and the San
Bernardino County Museum in July. He noted that he
had delayed ruling on the motions thinking the parties
would settle their differences, but it was now apparent
they could not. Although he recognized how culturally
satisfying it would be to the people of southern
California to have the meteorite remain there, the law
was clear: the meteorite had been found on federal land,
and therefore belonged to the United States; the
Secretary of the Department of the Interior has the
authority under the Antiquities Act to issue permits for
the gathering of objects of scienti?c interest found on
federal lands under his jurisdiction; and the Secretary did
not err in permitting the Smithsonian to take possession
of the meteorite. He therefore denied the motions for
preliminary injunction against removal of the meteorite
from California and title to it, and vacated and set aside
the temporary restraining order to keep the meteorite in
California.
In January and February of 1978, the Smithsonian
met with members of the staff of Representative Pettis
and Senator Cranston, explaining that it was the
Smithsonian?s intention to have the meteorite sent to
Washington for study, during which ??a slice of up to
one-third?? would be removed for scienti?c examination.
Following that, it would be returned to a museum in
California. With Cranston?s agreement, plans were
drawn up to have the meteorite sent on March 3 to the
Smithsonian from the BLM way station in Barstow,
California, where it was then being held (Taylor
The Old Woman IIAB iron meteorite 937
undated). These plans were announced in a Smithsonian
news release on March 2. As well, Lawrence E. Taylor,
the Smithsonian?s Coordinator of Public Information,
spoke over the phone with several California reporters in
an effort to make the Smithsonian?s position as clear as
possible, and Secretary Ripley sent letters explaining the
plan to every member of Congress from California. The
meteorite arrived at the Smithsonian?s National Museum
of Natural History on March 8, 1978?2 years after its
discovery, and 9 months after its removal from the Old
Woman Mountains.
To ensure that the eventual exhibition of the
meteorite would be consistent with the wishes of
Californians, the Smithsonian asked Senator Cranston?s
staff to help select a museum where a long-term
loan arrangement could be made (Taylor undated).
Eventually, his staff recommended the Los Angeles
County Museum of Natural History, which the
Smithsonian had been leaning towards because of their
long history of collaboration (Ripley 1977c).
Two other problems soon arose. In May, the San
Bernardino County Museum and the State of California
appealed Judge Whelan?s ruling of December 27,
1977 dissolving the temporary restraining order and
denying the request for a preliminary injunction. The
Department of Justice informed the Smithsonian that
any decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit could take up to 2 years or more.
Secondly, on the same day that Giles Mead, Director of
the Los Angeles museum, was sent a proposed exhibit
agreement, John Wasson again stepped forward.
Responding to the Smithsonian?s March 2 news release
that it intended to remove a slice of about one-third of
the meteorite for its study, he wrote Senator Cranston
and others, claiming that ??the chief motive of the
Smithsonian is to retain the largest amount of the Old
Woman that they can without obviously going against
the declaration [of] Secretary Andrus,?? and that its
cutting plan would seriously detract from the exhibit
value of the main mass.
He went on to urge that letters be written to
Secretaries Andrus and Ripley requesting that no cutting
of the meteorite be carried out until the Smithsonian
submitted detailed plans, prepared a position paper
comparing the scienti?c and exhibit-related pros and
cons of its proposed plan, and invited comments from
several curators and iron meteorite researchers regarding
the merits of its plan and Wasson?s own plan. Wasson
argued that ??The chief scienti?c value to be obtained by
sawing the Old Woman is to ?nd out whether the entire
2753 kg mass was earlier a single gamma phase crystal
with maximum dimensions of about 110?120 cm,?? and
that this question could be answered by measurements
on small parallel cuts made on opposite sides of the
meteorite, involving the removal of only ??a few tens of
pounds?? (<20 kg) of material (Wasson 1978a). As
earlier, Wasson?s letters served as a catalyst, and played
a role in the decision of the State of California and the
San Bernardino County Museum to ask the Federal
District Court in Los Angeles in July to enjoin the
Smithsonian from cutting the meteorite prior to a ruling
by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
DEBATE OVER THE CUTTING OF THE
METEORITE
Sensitive to Wasson?s letters and the Court?s
injunction, and desirous of formulating the best research
plan possible, in September 1978 Clarke sent a ??Dear
Colleague?? letter to 19 individuals whose research either
involved iron meteorites or who were curators or
administrators of museums with meteorite collections,
soliciting their views on how the Old Woman meteorite
should be studied (Clarke 1978a). The letter was written
to encourage a broad range of responses, and did not
mention either the Smithsonian?s position or Wasson?s.
Wasson responded with a ??Dear Colleague?? letter of
his own. After informing the recipients of the ??political
tug-of-war [that] is in progress between the Smithsonian
Institution and the State of California,?? he informed
them their response to Clarke would have ??implications
regarding the amount of material that is to remain in
Washington.?? After making sure they realized that, he
went on to request that they provide him with a copy of
their response ??in order to con?rm that the amount to be
removed seems reasonable from the viewpoint of
Californians?? (Wasson undated).
Responses to Clarke?s ??Dear Colleague?? letter were
generally favorable to the Smithsonian?s position. Vagn
Buchwald, for example, pointed out that Old Woman
appeared to be transitional between group IIA and IIB
meteorites, with a structure that would probably
correspond to that of such large irons as Navajo, Mount
Joy, and Sikhote-Alin. Since only relatively small
sections of these meteorites were available to researchers,
however, a large section through Old Woman would
provide a unique opportunity for study (Buchwald
undated).
Speci?cally, as Joe Goldstein pointed out, a large
surface area would provide an opportunity to observe
chemical and structural features that could yield unique
data about conditions during the solidi?cation of the
parent iron meteorite. Since such information about
early high temperature events in the formation of iron
meteorites was severely lacking, a large cut and polished
surface of Old Woman could provide incalculable
scienti?c information (Goldstein 1978). It was also noted
that the Smithsonian was the only meteorite laboratory
938 H. Plotkin et al.
in the United States with the equipment and expertise
necessary to make such a large cut.
Interestingly, individuals other than Wasson who
were opposed to the idea of a large cutting of the
meteorite did not respond to Clarke directly, but instead
submitted af?davits directly to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The main argument
against the Smithsonian plan was that a removal of one
third of the mass of the Old Woman meteorite, the
second largest ever found in the United States, would
greatly reduce its exhibition value. Basically, they agreed
with Wasson that a much smaller cut of the meteorite,
no more than a slice of 23 kg, would suf?ce for
scienti?c research purposes (Wasson 1978b). It is perhaps
worth noting that four of the six strongest opponents of
a large cut?Wasson; Peter Keller, the curator of
mineralogy and geology at the Los Angeles County
Museum of Natural History; Gerald Smith, the director
of the San Bernardino County Museum; and Leon
Silver, professor of geology at the California Institute of
Technology??were from California.
As a museum curator, Clarke was certainly
sympathetic to the arguments about the Old Woman?s
exhibition value, but believed that they played
a secondary role to scienti?c considerations (Clarke 1979c):
I would like to ? comment on our responsibility as
a repository of meteorite material. Our ?rst
responsibility is to the science, to see that these
precious planetary system samples that come our way
are studied as broadly and as imaginatively as
possible. Conservation of material is essential and
exhibit value is important. Public exhibit, however,
must be a secondary consideration until material is
secured for scienti?c needs.
On August 23, 1978, the Federal District Court in
Los Angeles denied the injunction against allowing the
meteorite to be cut until a ruling had been handed down
by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. This
decision was appealed, but the injunction was again
denied in an order ?led on April 2, 1979. These rulings
opened the way for the Smithsonian to cut the meteorite
and begin its scienti?c study.
On May 21, Clarke outlined the Smithsonian?s
cutting plan. A small 2 kg piece would be removed ?rst
to provide a view of the interior of the meteorite. A slice
would then be removed from this for macro etching, and
pieces would be taken for metallographic examination
and bulk chemical analysis for both major and trace
elements. Information gleaned from this would play
a critical role in developing plans for the detailed study
of the meteorite. Following this, a major cut would be
made separating the meteorite into a research piece and
an exhibit piece. When completed, the exhibit piece
would be shipped to California for display in a museum
(Clarke 1979b).
Cutting began a week later, on May 29. The ?rst
piece (USNM 6358), weighing 4.66 kg, was removed on
June 5 and then ground, polished, and etched. Four
polished sections were subsequently prepared from this
material for metallographic examination. Although 15%
of its surface exhibited the structure of a coarsest
octahedrite, the remainder of the surface was essentially
one large kamacite crystal, indicating a hexahedrite
classi?cation. This led Clarke to comment (Clarke
1979d) ??It appears that [we have] a new transitional type
meteorite on our hands ? It is obvious that we are
involved with an unusually coarse structured meteorite.
Knowing this, I am more con?dent than before that
a major cut is essential.??
Work began on the major cut on August 10. It was
a slow, tedious, and exacting process which continued
into May 1980. Eighty-eight wires were utilized during
124 h of cutting, which took place over a period of
50 days. The result was the removal on May 9 of a large
piece from the deeply weathered bottom side (as found)
of the meteorite (Fig. 7). The 70 by 90 cm (0.47 m2)
section weighed 427.3 kg, representing about 15% of its
2753 kg. In the late summer of 1980, the Old Woman
meteorite was placed on temporary exhibit for several
weeks in the National Museum of Natural History
(Fig. 8), while ?nal preparations were being made for its
transfer back to California. ??This will become a famous
meteorite among scientists,?? Clarke predicted, ??and will
continue to generate interest for years to come??
(Smithsonian Institution News 1980).
Fig. 7. Tim Rose, Museum Technician, with the Old Woman
meteorite in the National Museum of Natural History?s
Materials Processing Laboratory shortly after the ?rst big cut,
427.3 kg, had been completed on May 9, 1980. Photo credit:
Chip Clark (Smithsonian).
The Old Woman IIAB iron meteorite 939
THE METEORITE?S RETURN TO CALIFORNIA
Even while the injunctions against allowing the
meteorite to be cut were still before the court,
the Smithsonian tried to ?nalize loan arrangements for
the eventual display of the main mass in a California
museum once it was returned to the state. By then, Giles
Mead was no longer the director of the Los Angeles
County Museum of Natural History. Although the
acting director expressed interest in having the meteorite
put on display in the museum, he expressed his
??signi?cant objection?? to the Smithsonian?s plan to cut
approximately one-third of the specimen for its research
purposes (Arnold 1978). In December 1978, Taylor
wrote to the Los Angeles museum and to Senator
Cranston?s staff, with whom the Smithsonian was in
ongoing contact, that ??we must reluctantly conclude that
under the circumstances the museum is not interested in
entering into a loan agreement now,?? and that
discussions with other interested California museums
should be begun (Taylor 1978).
In January, 1980, the litigation in which the San
Bernardino County Museum and the State of California
claimed title to the meteorite reached the procedural
stage of oral argument on the merits before the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On May 15,
1980, that court af?rmed the Federal District Court of
Los Angeles? decision of December 27, 1977, holding
that the earlier dismissal of the claims was correct since
the plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief
could be granted. That decision was not appealed; the
long, embattled saga of the Old Woman meteorite had
?nally come to an end.
Through a loan agreement worked out between the
Smithsonian and the Department of the Interior, the
main mass of the Old Woman meteorite, now 2330 kg,
was returned on September 27, 1980 to Barstow,
California, where it had been kept before it was sent to
Washington. It was placed on long-term exhibit at the
Bureau of Land Management?s Desert Discovery Center,
in a ceremonial program headed by Representative Jerry
Lewis, who had replaced Shirley Pettis. This ended the
meteorite?s long odyssey, begun some four and one-half
years earlier. As Clarke pointed out, when the Old
Woman meteorite was accessioned into the National
Collection, it represented ??our largest specimen in over
180 years of combined Smithson-Smithsonian meteorite
collecting. On occasion I have felt that it has consumed
as much effort from as many individuals as the rest of
our meteorite specimens combined?? (Clarke 1979a).
METALLOGRAPHIC STRUCTURE OF THE OLD
WOMAN METEORITE
Some 35 years after its recovery, the Old Woman
meteorite remains a highly unusual example of the
metallographic structures observed in iron meteorites,
and the value of having a large slice available for
examination has been borne out. While the small mass
removed initially suggested the presence of two structural
types within Old Woman, the metallographic study of
the large slice provides invaluable insights into the
meteorite?s formation.
The 427.3 kg butt end was subsequently divided into
a 207 kg butt end (USNM 6360) and a 174 kg research
slice (USNM 6359). This 174 kg research slice has been
extensively subdivided. Initial sampling included drilling
cuttings for cosmogenic nuclides and sampling from
three corners of the research slice, with removal of 1 ?2
the thickness of the research slice of areas of 30, 50,
and 200 cm2. Two of these (labeled USNM 6359A and
C) sample the hexahedrite portion, while the third
(USNM 6359B) samples the octahedral structure.
Numerous subsamples and polished sections were
prepared from these three pieces. The research slice has
been subsequently subdivided, producing a thinner
complete slice and a partial slice which was again
extensively subsampled. In total, a surface area of
1.5 m2 has been examined from the Old Woman
meteorite. Examination of a complete slice (Fig. 9)
reveals a polycrystalline mass with grain sizes ranging
Fig. 8. Following the 427.3 kg cut, the Old Woman meteorite
was placed on temporary exhibit at the National Museum of
Natural History in late summer of 1980. The meteorite rests on
its cut surface, and the light patch visible in its center is where
the ?rst piece (4.66 kg) had been removed. Photo credit: Victor
Krantz (Smithsonian).
940 H. Plotkin et al.
Fig. 9. Smithsonian photographs of the cut surface of the Old Woman meteorite. a) Enlargement of the hexahedrite region
showing rounded to irregular sul?de inclusion (black), elongate schreibersite chains whose orientations are at 60, and Neumann
bands that cross cut the area. b) Enlargement of the octahedrite region emphasizing the coarse grained pattern. Photo credit:
Victor Krantz (Smithsonian).
The Old Woman IIAB iron meteorite 941
from less than 1 cm to more than 40 cm in maximum
dimension, with a strongly bimodal distribution. Seven
large grains comprise 85% of the surface area and
comprise the hexahedral structure within the meteorite
(Fig. 9a), with the remaining 15% of the surface
sampling the octahedral polycrystalline regions up to
20 cm in maximum dimension with grain sizes of 1?3 cm
(Fig. 9b). More rarely, smaller grains are found
completely enclosed (at least in two dimensions) within
the larger grains. This bimodal distribution is not unknown,
with the ungrouped iron New Baltimore exhibiting a
mixture of equiaxial grains and Widmansta?tten lamellae
(Buchwald 1975).
Within the larger grains, kamacite is the only Fe,Ni
metallic phase identi?ed; extensive examination with
scanning electron microscopy failed to identify taenite. If
such a mass fell as an individual meteorite, it might
properly be described as a hexahedrite, as indicated by
Clarke (1979b). Below, we adopt this terminology and
refer to these regions as hexahedral. However, these
regions contain schreibersite chains that can reach several
cm in length. Within these chains, individual schreibersites
are 100?200 lm in width and can reach several mm in
length. These schreibersites often exhibit embayments or
skeletal morphologies. The chains occur in three distinct
orientations at angles of 60 and exhibit spacings of 0.5?
1.5 cm, with an average spacing of 1 cm (Fig. 9a). The
schreibersites in these portions of Old Woman are similar
to the ungrouped, low-Ni iron Zacatecas (1792)
(Buchwald 1975), whose schreibersites exhibit similar
morphology, orientations, and spacing. Also present
within these large austenite regions are rounded, irregular,
and elongate sul?de inclusions ranging up to 3 cm across
(Fig. 9); elongated sul?de inclusions sometimes exhibit
orientations parallel to those of the schreibersites.
Mineralogically, the sul?de inclusions contain troilite and
daubreelite, and are often rimmed by schreibersite.
Throughout these large kamacite regions, small
schreibersites (rhabdites) are common. Carbide and
graphite are extremely rare, although we did ?nd one
schreibersite inclusion in a subsample of USNM 6358
near the edge of Old Woman rimmed by graphite and Fe
metal which form distinct partitions perpendicular to the
edge of the schreibersite. The morphology suggests that
the graphite may have formed from decomposition of
cohenite, a phenomenon also observed in the IIAB irons
Cedartown and Keen Mountain (Buchwald 1975).
Small parent austenite crystals within the
polycrystalline masses (Fig. 9b) are completely converted
to kamacite and lack any internal structure, indicative of
a remnantWidmansta?tten pattern. These regions, if sampled
as distinct meteorites, might be called coarsest octahedrites
(Clarke 1979d). Again, we adopt this nomenclature and
refer to these regions as coarsest octahedrite. At kamacite-
kamacite grain boundaries, ribbons of schreibersite are
observed, as are thin ribbons of sul?de. No taenite was
observed in these areas. Sul?de nodules up to a few
centimeters in maximum dimension are also observed within
these regions. Traverses across schreibersite lamellae both
in the hexahedral structure and at kamacite-kamacite grain
boundaries in the octahedral structure yield essentially
identical compositions of unzoned schreibersite of 21?22
wt% Ni and 14?15 wt% P with bordering kamacite
exhibiting a pronounced Ni depletion. Rhabdites average
35 wt% Ni. By comparison, large schreibersites in the
IIAB hexahedrite Coahuila (bulk 5.6 wt% Ni, 0.3 wt% P)
are slightly more Ni-rich (23.5 wt% Ni) and rhabdites are
essentially identical in composition (35 wt% Ni) (Clarke
andGoldstein 1978).
Overprinting the entire primary structure is extensive
shock modi?cation, including shock melting of
troilite-daubreelite-schreibersite inclusions; Neumann
banding, with each of the larger primary austenite
crystals exhibiting 1?2 dominant orientations that cross
the entire crystal; and formation of subgrain boundaries
within kamacite on the scale of 200 lm to 1 mm, leading
to an overall speckled appearance on the etched slice
(Fig. 9). Similar shock features, particularly shock-
melted sul?de inclusions, have been observed in a
number of other IIAB irons (e.g., Hex River Mountains,
Richland) (Buchwald 1975).
A heat-altered zone up to several mm in thickness
was observed on sections of the meteorites and, in cracks
or reentrants of the meteorite, we observed material,
which appears to be a eutectic metal-phosphide melt that
could represent material from the original fusion crust.
Chemically, Old Woman is a low-Ni, low-P member
of group IIAB. Bulk chemical analyses of all three
lithologies of the Old Woman meteorite by Jarosewich
(personal communication) revealed an average
composition of 5.86 wt% Ni (5.59 at%) (5.78?5.96 wt%
range), 0.30 wt% P (0.56 at%) (0.29?0.31 wt% range),
and 0.49 wt% Co (0.48?0.50 wt% range). Trace element
analyses (Wasson and Willis 1976; Kracher et al. 1980;
Wasson et al. 2007) reveal a composition intermediate in
the range of IIAB irons. Kracher et al. (1980) suggested
a compositional hiatus of 1 lg ?g between IIA and IIB,
placing Old Woman (0.80 lg ?g) in group IIA. It is,
however, generally accepted that a near continuous
distribution of compositions exists and IIAB should be
considered a single compositional group. We also note
that Wasson et al. (2007) report a somewhat lower bulk
Ni concentration (5.54 wt%) than Jarosewich (2006). In
the absence of P data from Wasson et al. (2007) and
considering the masses used for analyses by Jarosewich
(7.5?12.7 g), it is possible that the aliquot measured by
Wasson et al. (2007) was de?cient in the relatively
Ni-rich schreibersite common in Old Woman.
942 H. Plotkin et al.
The formation of the Widmansta?tten structure in
iron meteorites was reviewed by Yang and Goldstein
(2005), who proposed three mechanisms for the formation
of IIAB iron meteorites (Fig. 10). Hexahedrite members of
group IIAB formed through massive transformation of
taenite to kamacite, while the coarsest octahedrite members
formed through either the pathway c ? a2 + c ?
a + c (their mechanism V) or the pathway c ?
(a + c) ? a + c + ph (their mechanism III). The
analyses of Jarosewich (2006) place Old Woman on the
boundary betweenmassive transformation andmechanism
V and only slightly below the ?eld for mechanism III in P.
Given its complex structure and relative location in Ni-P
compositional space relative to these various mechanisms,
we examine how these mechanisms operated to form Old
Woman and whether the same mechanism operated
throughout themeteorite.
The ?rst question to ask in examining the structure of
Old Woman is why both hexahedral and coarsest
octahedral structures evolved in the same mass. As noted
earlier, this structure is not unprecedented, with New
Baltimore exhibiting a similar bimodal distribution
(Buchwald 1975). In the case of New Baltimore,
Buchwald (1975) argued that it owed its unusual structure
to nucleation of austenite crystals on sul?de inclusions,
with higher nuclei densities leading to smaller grain sizes.
In the case of Old Woman, such an explanation seems less
plausible, given the multiple sul?de inclusions that are
present in single hexahedral regions.
One possibility is that the coarsest octahedral
regions could have evolved via the c ? a2 + c ? a
+ c (mechanism V) or c ? (a + c) ? a + c + ph
(mechanism III) pathways into their present
polycrystalline state. The bulk composition of Old
Woman would favor the c ? a2 + c ? a + c
pathway. As noted by Yang and Goldstein (2005),
schreibersite may form at lower temperature if kamacite
or taenite is saturated with P after the a phase forms. In
the case of Old Woman, this would require complete
conversion of c to schreibersite. In this case, conversion
of taenite to schreibersite occurred at kamacite-kamacite
grain boundaries, producing the schreibersite ribbons
now observed at these boundaries.
Although the bulk composition of Old Woman lies
outside the compositional range for which the c ?
(a + c) ? a + c + ph (mechanism III) pathway is
favored by Yang and Goldstein (2005), the presence of
abundant schreibersite in both the hexahedral and
coarsest octahedral structures, and its apparent
orientation mimicking that of the Widmansta?tten pattern
in the hexahedral portion, spur us to examine this
possibility. The early stages of the c ? (a + c) ?
a + c + ph ? a + ph pathway were described by
Yang and Goldstein (2005). These authors noted that
kamacite does not nucleate in the a + c ?eld,
introducing the nomenclature (a + c) to denote this
fact. They did not consider the case of cooling to
temperatures below that of the a + c+ phosphide ?eld
for mechanism III in low-Ni irons.
This pathway can be illustrated through six
isothermal sections in the Fe-rich corner of the Fe-Ni-P
phase diagram at temperatures of 850C to 550C
(Fig. 11). By 750C, the Old Woman composition has
entered the two-phase a + c. By 550C, it has entered
the a + phosphide ?eld. Between these temperatures, it
is unclear whether Old Woman passed through the
a + c + ph ?eld (which seems likely) or passed directly
from a + c to a + ph, as argued by Clarke and
Goldstein (1978) for the Coahuila meteorite, which
contains 5.29 atom% Ni and 0.51 atom% P. At 600C,
schreibersite contains 13 wt% Ni, while phosphorus
remains soluble in kamacite, which can incorporate 0.5
atom% P. The schreibersite continues modest growth in
the a + phosphide ?eld, reaching the measured Ni
concentration of 21?22 wt%. Much later, lower
temperature nucleation produces the observed higher Ni
concentrations, and small phosphide rhabdites.
It is not clear which, if either, of these pathways
produced the coarsest octahedral structure in Old
Woman. Additional detailed studies, such as transmission
electron microscopy or electron backscattered diffraction,
might elucidate the origin of this structure. It is possible,
however, that neither of these mechanisms operated to
Fig. 10. Plot of Ni (wt%) versus P (wt%) illustrating the
ranges of compositional space in which various mechanisms
de?ned by Yang and Goldstein (2005) operated to form the
Widmansta?tten pattern. The range for IIAB irons and the
composition of Old Woman (Jarosewich 2006) are shown. Old
Woman lies near the intersection of compositions for massive
transformation and mechanisms III and V.
The Old Woman IIAB iron meteorite 943
form the hexahedral portion. At ?rst glance, the
c ? (a + c) ? a + c + ph ? a + ph has the
potential to produce both the kamacite-schreibersite
associations observed in the hexahedral portion and
elongated schreibersite chains oriented at 60 suggestive
of a remnant Widmansta?tten pattern. This mechanism
was suggested for the ungrouped, low-Ni iron Zacatecas
(1792) (Buchwald 1975). However, later shock
overprinting produced, among other features, Neumann
bands within Old Woman. In the hexahedral portion of
Old Woman, these Neumann bands appear to reach
20 cm in length on the large slab and are observed
microscopically to be continuous across the schreibersite
chains. This suggests that the hexahedral portions are,
indeed, single crystal kamacite. While complete
conversion of c to schreibersite could produce a
kamacite-schreibersite assemblage, that kamacite would
be polycrystalline. Diffusion rates and grain boundary
migration would be too slow to allow coarsening to the
hexahedral structure. A similar argument can be made
Fig. 11. Compositions of Old Woman and Coahuila plotted on isothermal sections between 850 and 550C (Doan and Goldstein
1970) in the iron-rich corner of the Fe-Ni-P system. These compositionally similar meteorites evolve from c (850C) through a + c
(750C to 650C) to a + phosphide (550C). Between 650C and 550C, it is unclear whether these compositions pass through
a + c + phosphide. It is possible that only the hexahedral portion of Old Woman passed through the three-phase ?eld, while the
octahedral portion passed from a + c to a + phosphide.
944 H. Plotkin et al.
for Zacatecas (1792), where Buchwald (1975) illustrates
continuous Neumann bands on either side of elongate
chains of large, irregular schreibersites. Instead, the
hexahedral portion may have formed via massive
transformation (c ? am). At low-Ni compositions, this
transformation occurs at relatively high temperatures.
After this transformation, the large schreibersite chains
formed and their irregular forms re?ect this high-
temperature formation.
Our preliminary examination of the metallography of
Old Woman suggests that its diverse structure may owe to
formation by one or more mechanisms within a single
mass. This strongly suggests that further study of this
fascinating meteorite, made possible by the large exposed
surface produced during cutting of the main mass, may
yield additional insights into the pathways by which iron
meteorites in general transform during cooling.
CONCLUSIONS
Old Woman has the distinction of being the largest
meteorite in the National Collection of Meteorites at
more than 2.5 metric tons. Iron meteorites of this size,
particularly those for which large slices exist, provide
unique insights into the diversity and complexity that
occur at the m-scale as a result of the crystallization and
cooling of an asteroid core. If sampled separately, the
individual lithologies of Old Woman might well have
been classi?ed as three distinct meteorites. Instead, we
now recognize that transitional textural types do occur in
close proximity, and can unravel the unique
combinations of chemistry, nucleation, and cooling
history that produce these textures.
It can be argued that the Smithsonian?s long
involvement with meteorites, its world-class collection,
and its generous distribution of specimens to the national
and international scienti?c communities present good
reasons for continuing the policy of transferring
meteorites found on federal lands to it for placement into
the National Collection of Meteorites. There, they can be
not only studied and disbursed effectively, but viewed by
more persons than would be possible in any state
museum (the National Museum of Natural History has
more than seven million visitors a year).
Acknowledgments? First and foremost, the authors
thank Tim Rose, Department of Mineral Sciences,
Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of Natural
History, for the hours spent on careful preparation and
cutting of the Old Woman meteorite. The authors also
thank the staff of the Of?ce of the Smithsonian Institution
Archives, particularly Pam Henson and Brian Daniels, for
their assistance in locating relevant documents. We thank
former Smithsonian Assistant General Counsel George S.
Robinson, who provided helpful comments on an earlier
draft of the manuscript. We thank Nicole Lunning,
Department of Mineral Sciences, Smithsonian Institution,
National Museum of Natural History, for the preparation
of the maps and ?gures. We thank Katrina Jackson,
former Smithsonian summer intern, for her work on
Scanning Electron Microscope imagery of the meteorite.
We are particularly grateful to Ed Scott and Ursula
Marvin, who provided insightful reviews. The section on
the metallography of Old Woman was dramatically
modi?ed as a result. Finally, we gratefully acknowledge the
Smithsonian Institution?s Edward P. and Rebecca Rogers
Henderson Endowment for travel and research funding.
Editorial Handling?Dr. Christian Koeberl
REFERENCES
In the following references, SIA stands for Smithsonian
Institution Archives, RU stands for Record Unit, Acc. stands
for Accession Number, and RSC Papers stands for papers
housed in Roy S. Clarke Jr.?s of?ce in the Division of
Meteorites, National Museum of Natural History.
Alexander G. 1977. Visitor from outer space is airlifted into
U.S. clutches, The Washington Post, June 19.
Arnold L. G. 1978. Letter to G. S. Robinson, December 4,
SIA, RU 329, Box 108.
Brown G. E. 1977. Letter to S. D. Ripley, July 19, SIA, RU
613, Box 403.
Buchwald V. F. 1975. Handbook of iron meteorites. Berkeley
and Los Angeles: The University of California Press. 1372 p.
Buchwald V. F. undated. Letter to R. S. Clarke Jr. [October,
1978], RSC Papers.
Carpenter W. L. 1976. Letter to S. D. Ripley, December 21,
SIA, Acc. 327748.
Challinor D. 1977. Letter to J. W. Moorman, September 22,
SIA, RU 373, Box 3.
Chapman O. L. 1944. Letter to E. P. Henderson, October 31,
SIA, Acc. 168531.
Clarke R. S. Jr. 1976a. Letter to D. Friberg, September 10,
SIA, Acc. 327748.
Clarke R. S. Jr. 1976b. Letter to D. Friberg, September 30,
SIA, Acc. 327748.
Clarke R. S. Jr. 1976c. Memorandum of Call, September 30,
SIA, Acc. 327748.
Clarke R. S. Jr. 1976d. Trip Log, September, RSC Papers.
Clarke R. S. Jr. 1977a. Memorandum to Of?ce of the
Registrar, Accessioning of Old Woman meteorite, June 24,
SIA, Acc. 327748.
Clarke R. S. Jr. 1977b. Memorandum to W. G. Melson, Trip to
recover Old Woman meteorite, August 15, SIA, Department
of Mineral Sciences, Records, Acc. 89-097, Box 2.
Clarke R. S. Jr. 1978a. Letter to ??Dear Colleague,?? September
29, RSC Papers.
Clarke R. S. Jr. 1978b. Supplemental Af?davit of Dr. Roy S.
Clarke, Jr., Curator, Department of Mineral Sciences,
Smithsonian Institution, United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit, October 19, RSC Papers.
Clarke R. S. Jr. 1979a. Letter to P. M. Kier, May 15, National
Museum of Natural History, Division of Meteorites, Acc.
87-041, Box 1.
The Old Woman IIAB iron meteorite 945
Clarke R. S. Jr. 1979b. Memorandum to P. M. Kier, A plan
of study for the Old Woman meteorite, May 21, RSC Papers.
Clarke R. S. Jr. 1979c. Memorandum to G. Robinson,
Background material for response to Dr. John Wasson?s
letter of May 29, 1979 concerning decision-making and the
Old Woman meteorite, June 7, RSC Papers.
Clarke R. S. Jr. 1979d. Memorandum to J. Mello, Progress report
on study of Old Woman meteorite, June 27, RSC Papers.
Clarke R. S. Jr. and Goldstein J. I. 1978. Schreibersite growth
and its in?uence on the metallography of course-structured
iron meteorites. Smithsonian Contributions to the Earth
Sciences 21:80 p.
Cranston A. 1977. Letter to C. A. Andrus, July 28, RSC Papers.
Doan A. S. Jr. and Goldstein J. I. 1970. The ternary phase
diagram, Fe-Ni-P. Metallurgical Transactions 1:1759?1767.
Dumauf C. W. 1977. Letter to S. D. Ripley, May 5, SIA, Acc.
327748.
Evans T. 1977. ??Old Woman?? meteorite heads for
Smithsonian, B.L.M. Newsbeat, August.
Friberg D. 1976. Letter to Dear Ms. or Sir, August 16, SIA,
Acc. 327748.
Goldstein J. 1978. Letter to R. S. Clarke, Jr., October 18, RSC
Papers.
Goldwater B. 1977. Letter to H. Brown, April 7, SIA, Acc.
327748.
Henderson E. P. 1976. Letter to D. Friberg, August 27, SIA,
Acc. 327748.
Hillier G. E. 1976. Letter to D. Friberg, October 1, Of?ce of
the General Counsel, RU 85-071, Box 31.
Jarosewich E. 2006. Chemical analyses of meteorites at the
Smithsonian Institution: An update. Meteoritics &
Planetary Science 41:1381?1382.
Johnson H. D. 1977. Letter to C. A. Andrus, July 12, SIA, RU
329, Box 108.
Kracher A., Willis J., and Wasson J.T. 1980. Chemical
classi?cation of iron meteorites ? IX. A new group (IIF),
revision of IAB and IIICD, and data on 57 additional
irons. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 44:773?787.
Mead G. W. 1977. Letter to S. D. Ripley, July 11, SIA, RU
329, Box 108.
Navy Times. 1977. Corps airlifts rare, giant meteorite, July 11.
Norton O. R. 1977. There was an old woman. Lapidary Journal
January: 67.
Pettis S. 1977. Letter to S. D. Ripley, June 21, RSC Papers.
Riley P. H. 1977. Letter to S. D. Ripley, February 2, SIA, Acc.
327748.
Ringland A. C. 1908. Letter to G. B. Coleman, February 25,
SIA, RU 192 #19600.
Ripley S. D. 1976. Letter to E. Hastey, November 4, SIA, Acc.
327748.
Ripley S. D. 1977a. Letter to D. H. Rumsfeld, January 11, SIA,
RU 329, Box 108.
Ripley S. D. 1977b. Letter to H. Brown, April 14, SIA, Acc.
327748.
Ripley S. D. 1977c. Letter to J. T. Wasson, July 20, SIA, RU
373, Box 3.
Ripley S. D. 1977d. Draft letter to G. E. Brown, July 21, RSC
Papers.
Schmitt D. G. 2002. The law of ownership and control of
meteorites.Meteoritics & Planetary Science 37(Suppl.):B5?B11.
Smith G. A. 1977. Letter to R. S. Clarke Jr., June 21, RU 329,
Box 108.
Smithsonian Institution News. 1980. Old Woman meteorite
returns to California. September 3.
Taylor L. E. 1978. Letter to R. Greenaway, December 7, SIA,
RU 373, Box 3.
Taylor L. E. 1981. Letter to L. E. Perry, June 1, SIA,RU373, Box 3.
Taylor L. E. (undated). Memorandum, Of?ce of the General
Counsel, RU85-071, Box 31.
Wasson J. T. 1976a. Letter to R. S. Clarke Jr., November 15,
SIA, Acc. 327748.
Wasson J. T. 1976b. Letter to A. Cranston, November 19, SIA,
Acc. 327748.
Wasson J. T. 1976c. Letter to J. Tunney, December 16, SIA,
RU 329, Box 108.
Wasson J. T. 1977. Letter to S. D. Ripley, June 24, SIA, RU
329, Box 108.
Wasson J. T. 1978a. Letter to A. Cranston, April 10, SIA, RU
373, Box 3.
Wasson J. T. 1978b. Af?davit of Dr. John Wasson, United
States District Court, Central District of California, July
14, RSC Papers.
Wasson J. T. undated. Letter to ??Dear Colleague,?? [October,
1978], RSC Papers.
Wasson J. T. and Willis J. 1976. Discovery of large IIAB iron
meteorite in southern California. Meteoritics 11:386?387.
Wasson J. T., Huber H., and Malvin D. J. 2007. Formation of
IIAB iron meteorites. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta
71:760?781.
Webb J. D. 1977. Letter to J. W. Moorman, September 28,
RSC Papers.
Yang J. and Goldstein J. I. 2005. The formation mechanism of
the Widmansta?tten structure in meteorites. Meteoritics &
Planetary Science 40:239?253.
Younger E. J. et al. 1977. Letter to E. Tolan, November 14,
RSC Papers.
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Additional supporting information may be found in
the online version of this article:
Fig. S1. Pencil sketches of a study of the Old
Woman meteorite, drawn for the Smithsonian by artist
Marcy Dunn Ramsey (marcydunnramsey.com), based on
photographs and a study of the meteorite. The triangular
legend shows the direction (labeled) from which each
view was drawn, with View D drawn from the bottom of
the meteorite (view opposite to that seen in the legend
drawing). The maximum dimension of the meteorite in
these images is in the range of 0.8 to 1.0 m.
Fig. S2. These images are pencil sketches of the ?nd
site of the Old Woman meteorite, a boulder ?eld on a slope
in the Old Woman Mountains of California. Drawings
by Marcy Dunn Ramsey (marcydunnramsey.com) based
on photos of the ?nd site and study of the meteorite for the
Smithsonian Institution. The deeply pitted iron meteorite
is approximately 1 m across in these perspectives.
Please note: Wiley-Blackwell is not responsible for
the content or functionality of any supporting materials
supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing
material) should be directed to the corresponding author
for the article.
946 H. Plotkin et al.