|
|
|
|
www.meteorite-recon.com
Gibeon Iron Meteorites
page 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5
Gibeon Iron Meteorites. Their Discovery, History and Research. By Svend Buhl
Prelude
Long before modern man cast his eyes on the fierce cliffs and the
rolling hills of the Great Namaquas, a celestial
spectacle unequalled in modern times occurred over
the Kalahari and South
African sky. From the icy depths of space a solid rock of iron measuring
roughly 4 x 4 x 3 meters entered the atmosphere of our planet at a
low angle of 10° to 20° along a northwesterly trajectory. While still
in the upper atmosphere the accumulating drag forces tore the body
apart and the meteoroid fragmented in a terminal explosion which rocked
the country for hundreds of miles. Dragging fiery trails behind them
the fragments and shreds of the cosmic intruder continued their rapid descent.
In the plasma jet stream their outer surfaces melted and
while the liquid melts were continuously stripped off by the gas
stream uneven masses with deep cavities formed. When they hit the
savannahs around a then nameless extinct volcano today known as
the Brukarros structure, thunder from the terminal explosion rolled across the canyons and
plains.
|
|
Sculpted Gibeon meteorite of 14.69 kg. The larger bowl shaped
cavities are commonly attributed to troilite inclusions which melted out
during atmospheric flight or which weathered out of the mass due to soil etching
|
|
Discovery
Subsequently to his South African journey of almost
four thousand miles, James Edward Alexander; Captain in the British and
Lieutenant-Colonel in the Portuguese Service, in 1838 published a two
volume work with the appropriate title “An Expedition Of Discovery Into
The Interior of Africa, Through The Hitherto Undescribed Countries Of
The Great Namaquas, Boschmans, And
Hill Damaras. Performed Under The Auspices Of Her Majesty’s Government,
And The Royal Geographical Society”.
Capt. (later General, Sir) J. E. Alexander was not the first
to travel up the Great Fish River. Several Dutch colonists, among
them W. Van Reenen, went northwards along the river before 1836,
but their accounts were never published. What makes Alexander’s account
interesting to us is his mentioning of several specimens of native iron
on the east bank of the Great Fish River. Alexander never examined these
masses with his own eyes but he was able to obtain a sample which proved
the claims of his scouts.
Alexander submitted the sample to Sir John Herschel, who then was president
of the Literary and Scientific Institution of South Africa.
Herschel undertook a chemical examination of the iron and Alexander provided
the resulting description in the appendix on “Mineral Specimens” on p. 272
of vol. 2 of his work. It is the first written description of a meteorite
specimen from what would later
become the largest known strewn field of extraterrestrial bodies on
earth:
“The specimen in question weighed 21.79 grains; 3.12 of which were separated,
and submitted to a hasty preliminary examination for the detection of nickel,
if any, but the quantity proving to small, the whole of the remainder was
operated on in a subsequent trial. The iron was highly malleable and tenacious,
and apparently of excellent quality, with a somewhat whiter and more silvery
lustre than belongs to the metal in its ordinary state, and apparently little liable to oxidation,
qualities which are observed in iron, of what is usually considered
undoubted meteoritic origin.”
|
|
District road no. 1089 from Gibeon to Helmeringhausen: view towards Schwarzrand mountains and Hardap region which provides a good example
of the terrain conditions in the western part of the Gibeon strewn field. Image courtesy of Dr.-Ing. Klaus Dierks
|
|
Herschel continued with the description of his analysis technique
as described in his articles in the “Annalen der Chemie” (1833)
and “Philosophical Transactions (1821) and which determined a
nickel proportion of 4.61 percent for the sample. Herschel concludes:
“Thus it appears that the specimen brought home by Capt. Alexander,
has equal claim to a meteoritic origin with any of those masses of
native nickeliferous iron which have been found in
different localities, and to which that origin has, without
other evidence, been attributed.”
What followed was the first recognition of the fact that the Gibeon masses constitute a strewn field:
“All those specimens, however, have, so far as I know, been insulated
single masses. But what constitutes the peculiar and important feature
of the discovery of Capt. Alexander, is the fact stated by him of the
occurrence of masses of this native iron in abundance, scattered over a
considerable tract of country. If a meteoritic origin be attributed to
all these, a shower of iron must have fallen, and as we can imagine
no cause for the explosion of a mass of iron, and can hardly conceive
a force capable of rending into fragments, a cold block of this very
tenacious material, we must of necessity conclude it had to arrive in
a state of fusion, and been scattered around by the assistance of
the air or otherwise, in a
melted, or at least softened state.”
|
|
Shepard's 1853 Notice of Lion River, South Africa, Meteoritic Iron |
|
Shepard and the Lion River iron
The next important chapter in the history of the Gibeon iron meteorite was
opened in 1853 with the publication of Charles Upham Shepard’s Notice of Lion
River, South Africa, Meteoritic Iron. In his work Shepard described the circumstances
of the discovery of a 178 lbs mass of meteoritic iron on a clay plain near the Lion River and
its subsequent transport by Mr. John Gibbs via ox cart to Cape Town.
The meteoritic iron was shipped to London where it was purchased by mineralogist to Queen
Victoria, Professor John Tennant, who forwarded it via New York to Professor Charles
Shepard of Amherst College in Massachusetts.
Shortly after the meteorite arrived at
Amherst College Shepard performed several experiments,
determined the Ni content and etched two cut surfaces. Apparently
the Lion river mass was the first intact Gibeon meteorite ever, that
was scientifically analyzed in the US. Concerning the cut marks
on this specimen Shepard quoted the notes of John Gibbs:
“The part cut has been done by the Namaquas for fabricating arrow-heads and assagais; the traces
of two or three abortive attempts of cutting may also be seen on the surface of the mass.”
Additionally Shepard was the first to comment on the find situation of a Gibeon
meteorite which was found on the spot where it fell. He described the clay layer,
of which he had received samples, as a “compact and hard marl, penetrated by seams of
iron-pyrites, which appear to fill spaces once occupied by fossil shells.
It may be
presumed therefore, that it belongs to the tertiary series in geology; and inasmuch
as the iron mass presents a perfectly clean, and nearly an unoxidated surface, it is
possible that its fall has either been very recent, or that is
has until lately been imbedded in this formation, and thus preserved from rusting.”
|
|
The "Mukorob" ("God's Finger") land mark, which gave name to the 178 kg Mukerop mass found within sight of the rock formation.
The photo was taken several days before December 4, 1988, when the rock collapsed. This happened shortly before the Namibian independency
in 1989. According to an old Nama
legend the rule of the white man
would come to end when the rock falls. Image courtesy of Dr.-Ing. Klaus Dierks
|
|
Brezina, Cohen, Berwerth and the Mukerop iron
In 1902 Aristides Brezina and Emil Cohen gave an extensive description of
a 178 kg meteorite which was found in 1899 near Mukerop (Mukorob). After a
cast was prepared the meteorite was cut under supervision of Prof. Fraas into
a middle section of 16 kg, and two end blocks of 86 and 61 kg respectively.
The cut loss was 15 kg.
The 16 kg midsection went to the Naturalienkabinett
in Stuttgart and onto the tables of the leading contemporary experts on
iron meteorites Emil Cohen and Aristides Brezina. Quickly they arrived at the
conclusion that the meteoritic iron was paired with the Lion River mass.
After etching the specimen Brezina noticed that about a third of the cut
section produced only a very week Widmanstätten pattern, a fact that he attributed
to the thinness of the taenite lamellae and to the homogeneity of the kamazite in this
part of the meteorite. As an explanation Brezina and Cohen suggested a slow reheating
of the mother body subsequent to its formation and cooling.
As accessory parts the authors
describe schreibersite, troilite and graphite. The nickel content is given with 8.19 percent.
In providing a synopsis of their chemical analysis with those of the iron meteorites of Bethany, Lion
River and Mukerop they concluded that all three finds are paired.
|
|
The photomacrograph of a Gibeon cut section provided in Berwerth's analysis of the Mukerop iron
|
|
In the same year as Cohen and Brezina Friedrich Berwerth (1902) from the Museum of
Natural History in Vienna published a metallurgical analysis of a Gibeon slice with
the dimensions 43 x 31 cm, that was also cut from the 178 kg mass examined in the
Naturalienkabinett in Stuttgart. Berwerth provided a photograph of this slice
and his analysis resulted in the first discovery of enstatite in the Gibeon meteorite.
click to continue
page 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5
|
© 2001-2009 Meteorite Recon
|
|