See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/227419404

The National Heritage Resource Act (1999): Can legislation protect South
Africa's rare geoheritage resources?

Article  in  Resources Policy · September 2011

DOI: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2011.04.002 · Source: RePEc

CITATIONS READS

11 290

1 author:

Bruce Cairncross
University of Johannesburg
140 PUBLICATIONS   1,478 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Microminerals View project

Minerals and gemstones of East Africa View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Bruce Cairncross on 08 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
 Author's personal copy

Resources Policy 36 (2011) 204–213

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/resourpol

The National Heritage Resource Act (1999): Can legislation protect

South Africa’s rare geoheritage resources?
Bruce Cairncross n
Department of Geology, University of Johannesburg, PO Box 524, Auckland Park 2006, Johannesburg, Gauteng, South Africa

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In South Africa, rare geological specimens are protected by the National Heritage Resource Act (1999).
Received 26 November 2010 These portable geoheritage objects are neither defined nor described in this Act making their
Received in revised form geoheritage status questionable. Thirteen categories and criteria for establishing a geological speci-
20 April 2011
men’s rarity status are discussed and include (1) rarity as defined by abundance per se; (2) rarity of a
Accepted 20 April 2011
Available online 24 June 2011
particular habit (external shape or form) of a mineral; (3) rare pseudomorphs; (4) rarity of a particular
variety of a mineral; (5) rarity of a particular colour of a common mineral; (6) rarity defined by size;
JEL classification: (7) rarity defined by quality; (8) a common species, but rare for a particular locality; (9) rarity of
Q34 associations of minerals; (10) rarity determined by source being depleted, exhausted or mined out; (11)
rare inclusions in minerals; (12) previously rare, now common specimens and (13) miscellaneous
Keywords:
criteria that produce rare specimens. Geological specimens (resources) are complex objects when
Heritage resources
defining their rarity status and multiple rarity factors can apply to single specimens. A lack of clear
Legislation
Rare geological specimens criteria for defining rare geological specimens appears to place the National Heritage Resource Act
(1999) in direct conflict with the more recent Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act
(2002) which legitimizes the legal exploitation of any mineral resource.
& 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction
Resources senso stricto typically equate to materials that have
the potential to be exploited and either sold or used for the
benefit of communities. However, resources can include valuable
heritage objects that relate to a countries cultural heritage and
these are often considered worthy of protection. Such is the case
with geoheritage (Pena dos Reis and Henriques, 2009). Most
published geoheritage research and national policy documents
tend to focus either on large scale geological features such as
geoparks, geosites and important geological outcrops (Leman
et al., 2008), or on palaeontology, for example fossils, trace fossils
or famous fossil sites. Even the newly established Springer
‘‘Geoheritage’’ journal has articles focussed primarily on in situ
geoheritage rather than ex situ ‘‘portable’’ geoheritage resources
such as geological specimens. In contrast, fossils have enjoyed a
somewhat higher geoheritage profile in comparison to rocks and
minerals and several countries have laws in place to protect
fossils and palaeontological sites (Leman et al., 2008; Hayward,
2009; Lipps, 2009).
n
Tel.: þ27 11 5594713; fax: þ27 11 559 4702.
E-mail address: brucec@uj.ac.za
The process whereby these geoheritage sites and objects are
assessed and evaluated regarding their importance is the subject
of discussion and debate; Pena dos Reis and Henriques (2009)
have attempted an integrated approach to evaluating various
scales of geological heritage but refer primarily to large geoheri-
tage sites, not portable items. Heriot-Watt University (2002) is a
succinct document that investigates the status quo of regulating
fossil collecting in Scotland, and also provides a useful summary
of similar regulations and legislation in the United States
of America, Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom. Fossil
collecting and the regulation thereof has a bearing on proposed
and existing legislation pertaining to mineral specimen preserva-
tion in that sites that contain ‘‘valuable’’ specimens are protected
and the import and export of specimens may be regulated.
In South Africa, three parliamentary acts govern and control
the exploitation and ownership of certain geological minerals,
ores and metals. These are the Precious Metals Bill (2005), the
Diamonds Act (1986), and their subsequent amendments, and the
National Heritage Resource Act—NHRA (1999). The first two
relate to gold, platinum, ores of these metals and the platinum
group elements. In South Africa, it is illegal to possess unwrought
gold, platinum or PGE specimens without the necessary permits.
The Diamond Act is self-explanatory; it prohibits anyone or any
organization from possessing uncut diamonds without a neces-
sary permit and licence, as detailed in the Act. The NHRA is far

0301-4207/$ - see front matter & 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.resourpol.2011.04.002
 Author's personal copy
B. Cairncross / Resources Policy 36 (2011) 204–213
broader in its legislative scope and seeks to ‘‘introduce an
integrated and interactive system for the management of the [South
African] national heritage resources1’’. The South African Heritage
Resources Agency (SAHRA) is charged with co-ordinating,
promoting and managing South Africa’s heritage resources at
national level. Among the objects itemized in the NHRA are
geological related objects such as meteorites, fossils, archaeolo-
gical artefacts and, quote ‘‘rare geological specimens’’. It is the
latter objects and their legal protection that are the focus of this
article.
The National Heritage Resource Act (1999)
The NHRA serves to protect South Africa’s valuable cultural
heritage resources. As such, the Act defines items of cultural
heritage that are deemed worthy of preservation and conserva-
tion. The definition of ‘‘conservation’’ in the NHRA Act is:
2(iii) ‘‘conservation’’, in relation to heritage resources, includes
protection, maintenance, preservation and sustainable use of
places or objects so as to safeguard their cultural significance.
This is somewhat problematical because of what cultural
significance are geological specimens? Whether mineral specimens
per se can have cultural value, and hence heritage value, is open to
debate, as argued by Heriot-Watt University (2002). Mineral
specimens, be they rare or common, have no inherent cultural
link with human culture as almost all naturally occurring mineral
specimens pre-date the evolution of humankind which by defini-
tion, relates to culture. Specimens that are incorporated into
jewellery or other items of adornment are culturally important.
If geological specimens cannot meet the criteria of being cultural
heritage artefacts then ideally they cannot fall within the ambit of
the NHRA. Fossils and meteorites are included as culturally
significant ‘‘objects’’ because they ‘‘provide information about the
evolution of life on Earth’’ (Section 31, NHRA). Therefore these
objects have indirect cultural importance. In contrast, geological
specimens (rocks and minerals) provide no direct evidence
regarding the evolution of life on Earth and serve no cultural
significance unless:
 They have been manufactured into archaeological artefacts,
such as stone implements, in which case the NHRA archae-
ological artifact component comes into effect, or
 They are rocks that have served as surfaces for historically
important paintings or petroglyphs, in which case the rock art
clause of the NHRA comes into effect, or
 They contain fossils, in which case the palaeontological pro-
tective aspect of the act is applicable.
While these particular principles may be philosophically
debatable, a serious omission in the NHRA is the lack of any
definition of ‘‘rare geological specimens’’. The description of ‘‘rare
geological specimens’’ as specified under item 32.1.a is:
‘‘Heritage objects
32. (1) An object or collection of objects, or a type of object or
list of objects, whether specific or generic, that is part of the
national estate and the export of which SAHRA deems it
necessary to control, may be declared a heritage object,
including
(a) objects recovered from the soil or waters of South Africa,
including archaeological and palaeontological objects, meteor-
ites and rare geological specimensy’’
1
Text in italics is verbatim from the NHRA (1999).
205
Further on, under Section 1.2.xxix ‘‘Definitions’’ defines
‘‘objects’’ as
‘‘object’’ means any movable property of cultural significance
which may be protected in terms of any provisions of this Act,
including:
(a) any archaeological artefact;
(b) palaeontological and rare geological specimens;
(c) meteorites; and
(d) other objects referred to in Section 3.
Elsewhere in the Act, archaeological artefacts, palaeonto-
logical specimens and sites and meteorites are defined, yet
‘‘rare geological specimens’’ although listed in the document as
being worthy of conservation are neither described, nor defined.
Geological specimens per se is a very broad term and effectively
covers all rocks and minerals on the Earth’s surface and
buried in the subsurface. Similarly, ‘‘rare geological specimens’’
can be interpreted several ways, objectively and subjectively
and ‘‘rare’’ can be a matter of opinion, albeit a well informed
opinion.
What are ‘‘rare geological specimens’’?
Geological specimens are collected for different reasons.
Academics and scientists collect these for research purposes.
Individuals and museums collect specimens for public display.
Serious mineral collecting has been the pastime of enlightened
society for centuries (Wilson, 1994) and the documentation of
private and institutional collections has similarly been ongoing
since the 15th Century (for example, see Adams, 1995; Smith,
1995; Wilson, 1995). Wilson’s (1994) opus magnum documenting
early mineral collecting provides evidence that mineral collectors
amassed their specimens for different reasons; for adornment,
pharmaceutical or medicinal purposes and earlier, as tools. These
early private collections were the precursors of institutional
collections (Petersen et al., 1994).
Modern mineral collecting can be a recreational pastime often
with intellectual objectives. Collectors today collect specimens
from specific localities, for aesthetic reasons, for investment, or
base their collections on systematics—attempting to assemble
species containing certain elements or classified into certain
mineralogical groups. The earliest publications on geological
specimens date back centuries (Wilson, 1995) while contempor-
ary literature on regional mineralogies are relatively common-
place (Sauer, 1982; Bancroft, 1984; Embrey and Symes, 1987;
Panczner, 1987; Cooper and Stanley, 1990; Bevins, 1994; Cairncross
and Dixon, 1995; Cairncross, 2004; Liu, 2006; von Bezing, 2007;
Staebler and Wilson, 2008; Tindle, 2008). Therefore, mineral
collecting of either rare or common geological specimens has been
ongoing for centuries within a relatively open market without
restriction and specimens are collected, preserved and curated by
professionals and amateurs alike.
Until recently, mineral specimens have attracted little interest
with respect to their geoheritage resource value (Brocx and
Semeniuk, 2010; Hatipoğlu, 2010). Yet museum displays of
dazzling, colourful, well-crystallized specimens are often major
draw-cards for natural history museums world-wide (Desautels,
1972; White, 1991) and one does not need specialist training to
appreciate the natural beauty of mineral specimens. In fact, the
NHRA (p. 58, 35.2) under the heading ‘‘Archaeology, palaeontology
and meteorites’’ states that ‘‘y. such objects be lodged with a
museum or other public institutiony.’’. The most popular single
object in the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of
Natural History in Washington DC is a geological specimen—the
 Author's personal copy
206 B. Cairncross / Resources Policy 36 (2011) 204–213
blue Hope diamond; it has the greatest name recognition of all
objects in this museum (Harlow, 2009). Therefore, assemblages
of mineral specimens whether common or rare are important
from the standpoint of attracting visitors to museums and also
introducing the public to geological artefacts and earth sciences in
general. Even so, this public display of geoheritage items does not
infer a cultural heritage value to such collections.
In order to assess the importance or value of ‘‘rare geological
specimens’’, mineral specimens as a whole need to be clearly
defined within their context of value to society and their value for
the owner concerned, whether the owner is the land owner,
mineral rights owner, private or institutional owner or the State.
Value of geological specimens can be broadly defined in two
ways:
 Economic value
 Scientific value
Geological/mineral specimens can further be categorized using
size criteria (micro-minerals to giant museum-sized specimens)
and aesthetic parameters. The importance of a geological speci-
men can then be attributed to these criteria and decisions made
whether it is of value or not.
Economic value of geological specimens
The economic value of mineral specimens either refers to
their salability value as collector items or the intrinsic value of
the specimen, such as its metal content. For example, a small,
single specimen of the zinc sulphide, sphalerite, will have little
or no value for its metal/zinc content, but it may have great
value based on other aesthetic criteria as a collector or quality
museum-display specimen. There are always exceptions to
this rule. Gold has an intrinsic value easily determined by the
daily gold price. Yet the bullion weight of a gold specimen
alone does not determine its overall value. A one-ounce water-
worn alluvial gold nugget will have little value other than the
bullion price of an ounce of gold. Yet, a one-ounce gold specimen
composed of well-formed sharply defined octahedral gold
crystals will have a collector value (and rarity value) an order of
magnitude greater, or more, than the baseline bullion value
(Francis, 1982).
In general, the economic value of collectable, rare or common
specimens is somewhat subjective, although there are certain
guidelines that are universally applied when assessing what
monetary value a mineral specimen possesses (Cairncross,
1986). For several years Brazeau and Brazeau (1987) published
a booklet providing objective guidelines used to evaluate mineral
specimens in US dollar terms. Value was based on standard
criteria such as size, form and perfection of specimens but such
catalogues are doomed to become outdated, either because of
changes in the market where once popular specimens become
less collectable, or more pragmatic aspects such as fluctuations in
currency values with time. There are no current catalogues of
mineral specimen values. There are however, contemporary
catalogue values from auction houses that have recently sold
mineral collections (Sotheby’s, 2001; Heritage Auction Galleries,
2008) and these give some guidelines as to the value of speci-
mens, although auction prices are not necessarily representative
of current market values. Economic value may be linked to rarity
status, but not invariably. The range of prices affixed to mineral
specimens varies from valueless to multi-million dollar prices
(Bancroft, 1973). The latter have been termed ikons (Thompson,
2007) and masterpieces (Wilson et al., 2004). These are one-of-a-
kind world-class specimens that epitomize the particular species
with regard to such aspects as aesthetics and rarity and by which
all others of the same species are judged (Wilson et al., 2004;
Staebler and Wilson, 2008). In addition to ikons, two other
categories of high economic value, world-class mineral specimens
are defined by Thompson (2007)—‘‘classics’’ and ‘‘contemporary
masterpieces’’. Placing specimens into these categories requires
extensive knowledge of not only the mineral specimens them-
selves, but of their provenance and their history.
Scientific value of geological specimens
If there is one parameter that ultimately makes all mineral
specimens scientifically valuable, it is that they are finite and a
non-renewable resource. Many specimens in collections today
have been sourced from active mines. These have fixed operating
life spans and once the ore body is exhausted, the supply of
specimens is permanently terminated. This factor alone should
place emphasis on collecting and preserving all specimens.
Geological specimens are indispensible when it comes to the
science of mineralogy. Type-locality species (Daltry, 1991; 1992;
1997) are by their nature valuable to science as they broaden the
number of known species. Paragenetic studies relate the sequence
of crystallization of minerals in an ore body or rock and these data
explain the genesis of the deposit and are therefore economically
important. Further scientific value is gained from geometallurgi-
cal studies of metal-bearing mineral species and these are used in
plant design for the extraction of the metal component from the
ore or mineral specimen.
More than eighty years ago English (1927) published an article
formulating a systematic approach to determining the scientific
value of specimens. The criteria used were commercial value,
chemical composition, form, miscellaneous characteristics and
rarity. Although this was at the time considered to be an objective
method of determining the scientific value of specimens, it has
not been extensively applied.
What is ‘‘rare’’?
A definition of ‘‘rarity’’ applied to geological specimens is
confusingly imbedded with complexities and interpretative ideol-
ogies and incorporates scientific, economic and experiential
elements. Yet if the NHRA is to be enforced, there must be clear,
unambiguous definitions of rarity in the Act. If the economic and/
or scientific value of geological specimens can be defined objec-
tively, these criteria could be used. One of the inherent problems
is the potential ephemeral nature of rarity when it comes to
geological specimens – what is rare today, may become abundant
tomorrow. Therefore, if rare geological specimens are to be
protected by the NHRA, what constitutes rarity? Without clear,
objective definitions, rare geological specimens can neither be
protected nor can anyone in a position of authority challenge a
person who may have in their possession, ‘‘rare geological
specimens’’ and thereby be contravening the NHRA. The NHRA
allows for ad hoc advisory committees of experts to be convened if
rare specimens are confiscated and their rarity value then assessed by
this committee. This still necessitates clear definitions of rarity to be
in place as a source of reference for such committees.
Common sense would seem to prevail when on object is
described as rare and intuitively one thinks of rare paintings, rare
porcelain, object de art, or rare flora or fauna where a living
species may be close to extinction and only a handful of species
are known. The one factor inherent in these rare objects is that
there would be very few of them in existence now and into the
future, thus they are chronologically and quantitatively rare.
 Author's personal copy

B. Cairncross / Resources Policy 36 (2011) 204–213 207

Geological artefacts and mineral specimens in particular present a

much greater challenge in firstly defining their rare status and
secondly, having the knowledge to determine whether the speci-
men one is looking at, in fact, falls into one or more several rare
categories. The following thirteen examples present definitions of
what could potentially constitute a ‘‘rare geological specimen’’.

Rarity as defined by abundance

This would be the fundamental definition, i.e., if only a handful

of specimens are known to exist. However, the geographic scale of
rarity must be taken into account. If a species is rare world-wide,
then it is by definition a very scarce object. However, a species
may be very rare in South Africa, for example gem-quality ruby
corundum, but relatively plentiful from other localities outside of
Fig. 1. Henritermierite (Ca3(Mn,Al)2(SiO4)2(OH)4) garnet from the Kalahari man-
South Africa. A South African ruby, if ever found, would therefore
ganese field, South Africa, 8.6 cm, displaying a very rare modified octahedral habit.
not be rare on a global scale, but only rare locally, and is that
significant enough to warrant legal protection? The second issue
to consider is: how many is rare? A handful (less than five),
globally, would certainly qualify as rare, but when does the
number of known specimens leave the realm of ‘‘rare’’ and
become ‘‘common’’? There is no such rarity reference number.
This is compounded by the supply of geological specimens that
often enter the market via several or more sources and no single
individual has the expert knowledge of how many specimens
originally were collected and dispersed. Furthermore, demand for
specific specimens can create an artificial state of rarity based
purely on supply and demand. For example, South African
rhodochrosite was originally relatively abundant when discov-
ered mid-1975 in the Kalahari manganese field (Wilson and
Dunn, 1978; Cairncross et al., 1997). Yet, museums and collectors
are insatiable when it comes to acquiring these specimens and
they are very difficult to acquire today, because their permanent
Fig. 2. Quartz (SiO2) pseudomorph after (right) orthoclase (KAlSi3O8) from Erongo
popularity as collectible minerals makes them rare and desirable
Mountain, Namibia.
objects in any collection—demand has outstripped initial supply.
So while these rhodochrosite crystals are not rare according to
numbers, they are rare today according to the collector market, on defining criteria for rarity are therefore not the abundance or
a global scale. scarcity of the species, but rarity of the habit of the crystal (Fig. 1).

Once rare specimens now common

Rarity via pseudomorphism
This category relates to the first one. The one major complicat-
Pseudomorphic replacement of one mineral by another can occur.
ing factor in the first, fundamental definition of rarity (above), and
The process of pseudomorphism involves the chemical replacement
particularly in promulgating an act that protects rare specimens
of one mineral species by another while retaining the external form
in perpetuity, is that at any time, potential new discoveries can be
(habit) of the original crystal (Wenk and Bulakh, 2004). Both species
made of a plentiful supply of specimens that were once rare, and
may be relatively common, but the resultant pseudomorph would be
thereby become common. This feature of geological exploration,
volumetrically more rare than the two original, individual species.
discovery and exploitation has been occurring for centuries
Alternatively, the original, unaltered specimen may have been
and one example is the initial rarity of vanadanite specimens.
common and pseudomorphically replaced by a rare species. The
Globally, vanadanite crystals were relatively rare and those from
end result is that of a rare species assuming the external form of a
the Apache Mine in Arizona, USA (Wilson, 1971), were rare
common species, or vice versa, based on original external morphology.
(and still are for the USA). Subsequent major discoveries of far
The Tsumeb mine in Namibia is famous for an array of unusual
superior, abundant vanadanite specimens from Morocco placed
pseudomorphs (Gebhard, 1999; Wilson, 1977b), although examples
this species in the common category (Jahn et al., 2003).
from other Southern African localities that have produced exotic
pseudomorphs are known (Fig. 2).
Rarity of a particular habit (external shape or form) of a mineral

Minerals crystallize in specific crystal systems and these
manifest themselves in certain external forms or shapes of
crystals. Many mineral specimens have relatively common
reoccurring habits that are often diagnostic and aid in identifying
the species. For example, certain garnet species such as alman-
dine are common, and most garnet’s crystal habit are dodecahe-
dral which falls in the cubic crystal system. Octahedral garnets
are very unusual. Therefore, if octahedral garnet crystals were to
be discovered, these would be very rare and classified as such. The
Rarity of a particular variety of a mineral
Some minerals have slightly different chemical compositions to
the pure form of the species. For example, aragonite (CaCO3) is a
relatively common world-wide. However, if aragonite contains trace
amounts of lead in its lattice structure it forms the variety known as
tarnowitzite (lead-aragonite), which is thus considered a chemical
variety of aragonite. Similarly, trace amounts of zinc in aragonite
result in the variant nicholsonite—zinc–aragonite (Gebhard, 1999).
 Author's personal copy
208 B. Cairncross / Resources Policy 36 (2011) 204–213
Both tarnowitzite and nicholsonite would be classified as rare
varieties of a common species, aragonite (Fig. 3).
Rarity of a particular colour of a common mineral
Certain mineral species are characteristically (commonly)
monochromatic while others display a wide range of colours,
e.g., fluorite. An example of the former is ruby corundum which
by definition is red although the shades of red can vary. If a
species that is usually only a certain colour were discovered in
small quantities of an atypical colour, it could be considered rare.
A famous example is beryl which is usually off-white to
pale-green or pale-blue. Yet one deposit of beryl in the Wah
Wah Mountains in Utah, USA contains unique red beryl (Ream,
1979). These are undoubtedly rare on a global scale, hence a rarity
factor of a common species caused by a colour variant.
Rarity defined by size
The size of a mineral specimen superseding all other known
sizes for a particular species would be rare (Frondel, 1935;
Rickwood, 1981). If certain minerals commonly occur within a
particular size range, then specimens that supersede these normal
sizes, could be considered rare. A relatively recent example of this
phenomenon was the discovery of giant gypsum crystals up to
11 m long in the Naica mine, Mexico (Garcı́a-Ruiz et al., 2007).
These are exceptionally rare. Quartz is one of the most common
minerals on Earth and is sometimes found as giant mega-crystals
(Fig. 4) which are somewhat rare. A common species can
potentially be classified as rare, depending on the size of the
Fig. 3. Two chemical varieties of aragonite (CaCO3) from the Tsumeb mine,
Namibia: zinc-rich nicholsonite, 5.1 cm (left) and lead-rich tarnowitzite (right).
Fig. 4. Giant, euhedral, doubly terminated 8800 kg quartz crystal from the
Karibib district, Namibia, on display at the 1987 Tucson Gem and Mineral Show.
specimens. A rare species usually occurring in small crystals
would be exceedingly rare if found as giant crystals.
Rarity defined by quality
Mineral specimens can be classified according to their
aesthetic appeal and quality (Wilson, 1990) and while this may be
deemed to be subjective, there are certain principles and guidelines
that apply when defining ikonic specimens (Bancroft, 1973;
Thompson, 2007) Thus some specimens that may be common can
achieve very rare ikon status simply because of the quality and
aesthetics and hence become rare specimens. Similarly, one of the
criteria used to define gemstones is clarity or transparency of
crystals, as opposed to being opaque. If a mineral species that is
commonly only found as opaque crystals is discovered in transpar-
ent colourful crystals, these would be rare. An example of this
feature is orthoclase, the common rock-forming alkali feldspar
which is virtually always found as opaque white-cream crystals.
At Itrongay, Madagascar, orthoclase was found in transparent yellow
crystals (Pezzotta, 1999) and these high-quality, ikonic specimens of
common feldspar elevate them into the rare category (Fig. 5). If
quality is the determining factor for establishing rarity with respect
to the NHRA, then the defining parameters would need to be
established by expert connoisseurs (Wilson, 1990).
A common species, but rare for a particular locality
Many institutional and private collections contain a wide
variety of species from many localities (Smith, 1991). Alterna-
tively, thematic collectors focus on particular species, chemical
groups or specific localities, and amass a systematic collection of
all known species from a particular locality. This is a focused
variant on the so-called systematic collection that attempts to
acquire a sample of every known species from a specific locality.
Understandably, no one locality possesses all known species.
Therefore, asbestos is a relatively common mineral, but asbestos
from the defunct Tsumeb Cu–Pb–Zn mine in Namibia is to-date,
unknown. Hence for a systematic museum collection attempting
to obtain all species from the Tsumeb mine, an asbestos specimen
from that locality would place the mineral in the extremely rare
category, a result of the collecting theme, not the species itself.
Similarly, chalcopyrite, a common copper sulphide, is extremely
rare from the South African Kalahari manganese field mines
(Cairncross et al., 1997). Rarity is therefore determined by the
locality, not the specimen per se (Fig. 6).
Fig. 5. Transparent, gem-quality orthoclase (KAlSi3O8) from Itrongay, Madagascar,
4.4 cm. These very rare high-quality crystals set the benchmark for all other
orthoclase specimens which are far more mundane.
 Author's personal copy

B. Cairncross / Resources Policy 36 (2011) 204–213 209

Fig. 6. Galena (PbS), 6.1 cm, is a common mineral, yet this specimen from one of
the Witwatersrand gold mines, South Africa, is exceptionally rare for the locality,
not the species per se.

Rarity of associations of minerals

Many geological specimens consist of two or more species

either on matrix or with different crystals acting as matrix. The
opposite is single, loose crystals off matrix. Combinations of
certain species can be very rare while the individual species
constituting the aggregate may be relatively common in their
individual right. Barite, haematite and andradite garnet are
relatively abundant as individual species from the N’Chwaning
II mine in the Kalahari Manganese Field, South Africa. If all three
were to be found associated on one single specimen, that would
be relatively rare.
Fig. 7. Quartz can often contain a variety of included minerals, some more rare
than others. Polished quartz crystal, 5.2 cm, enclosing haematite (a-Fe2O3),
kaolinite (Al2Si2O5(OH)4—white), ajoite ((K,Na)3Cu20Al3Si29O76(OH)16  8H2O—
light-blue) and papagoite (CaCu2 þ AlSi2O6(OH)3—dark-blue) from Messina mine,
South Africa (for interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the
reader is referred to the web version of this article).

Rarity determined by source being depleted or mined out

Many mineral specimens originate from operating mines.

While a mine is active, it can periodically produce mineral
specimens. Once the mine closes, specific specimens from that
mine are no longer discoverable and the global supply is then
finite. What may have been abundant while the mine was active,
as specimens being continuously extracted, ultimately become
scarce. A South African example is the Messina copper mine that
produced collectable quartz crystals for decades (Cairncross,
1991). A variation of this depleted source factor is that some
mines intersect unique mineralized zones that produce specific
specimens only from that zone and once mined through, they are Fig. 8. Japan-law twin quartz, 6.8 cm, from Zambia. These rare twin habits were
never found again. Conversely, some geological deposits, such as first recognized in 1829 (Cook, 1979).
the Deccan basalts in India have an inexhaustible supply of
minerals specimens that may last for centuries (Ottens, 2003).
Miscellaneous; unusual characteristics that produce rare specimens

Rarity of inclusions in minerals
The genetic history of a geological deposit is often reflected in
crystallization (paragenetic) sequences recorded as inclusions of
one or more species inside another. Inclusions can be gas or fluid
inclusions, so-called bubbles or solid inclusions of other minerals.
Quartz is famous for its myriad of inclusions. Inclusions of one or
more mineral species inside a host crystal can therefore create a
rarity factor compared with other quartz specimens containing no
inclusions. Included quartz crystals from the defunct Messina
copper mine provide good examples of this category of rarity.
Some contain inclusions of one to several different species often
brightly coloured copper silicates (Cairncross and Dixon, 1995)
creating rare and desirable specimens (Fig. 7).
Features that are atypical for common geological specimens can
result in a rarity factor caused by such unusual characteristics.
Luminescence (Rakovan and Waychunas, 1996; Robbins, 1994),
including fluorescence and phosphorescence are non-thermal emis-
sion of visible light by geological specimens and these properties are
peculiar to some mineral species such as common calcite (Modreski
and Waychunas, 1996) although not all calcite fluoresces under
ultraviolet light. Other relatively rare characteristics include crystal-
lographic twinning, common in some species such as cerussite but
rare in others. Quartz occasionally displays ‘‘V’’-shaped Japan-law
twins (Cook, 1979) where two crystals always intersect at an angle
of 841300 (Fig. 8). These twinned quartz specimens are decidedly
rarer than untwined crystals. Other examples of unusual character-
istics in common quartz that create rarity status are faden quartz
 Author's personal copy

210 B. Cairncross / Resources Policy 36 (2011) 204–213

(Richards, 1990), which possesses a thread-like or string-like zone
usually positioned down the centre of the crystals, sceptred quartz
(Fig. 9) (http://www.mindat.org/min-7620.html) and gwindel
quartz (Moore, 2007). The latter are considered to be amongst the
rarest forms of quartz.
Table 1 summarizes the various categories and criteria relating
to rarity factors in geological specimens. The rarity factor in
geological specimens is best summarized by Wilson (2004):
‘‘The evaluation of rarity is, in part, simply a statistical
exercise: ‘‘How many specimens have I seen that are as (rare)
good, or better, than this one?’’y. Somewhat confusingly
perhaps, rarity is also linked with size and perfection, as well
as with aesthetic, historical, and scientific criteria in ways that
can often make it difficult to or impossible to isolate.’’ Wilson
(2004), p. 31.
Case study
In a case study from Norway (Dons, 1977) a plea was made for
legislative protection of some Norwegian mineral producing sites
and mineral resources, particularly the famous quartz-anatase
specimens from Hardangervidda, Ullensvang (Griffin et al., 1997).
Dons, at the time a Director of the Mineralogisk-Geologisk
Museum in Oslo, argued for state protection of Norwegian
geological sites and mineralogical specimens, or for regulated
collecting in certain areas once a licence has been purchased,
somewhat akin to a fishing licence. Furthermore, only a select few
designated museums would be permitted to possess geological
specimens from this locality. As a counterargument, Wilson
(1977a) listed several pertinent questions to this proposal and
these are germane to the current South African scenario:

 Should mineral localities remain untouched until the local

Fig. 9. A 6.9 cm smoky quartz sceptre from the Brandberg region, Namibia. Sceptre
quartz specimens are decidedly more rare than quartz displaying ‘‘normal’’
terminations.
scientific/museum establishment can investigate them, no
matter how long this takes?
 Are mineral specimens being ‘‘used up’’ when they are
collected?
 Is a mineral specimen worth more buried in the ground
forever or when it has been collected, curated and displayed?
(Is it of any value left in the ground?)
 Can selective specimens be collected from a deposit or must an
entire deposit as a whole remain protected and untouched?
 Is a provincial approach to minerals defensible, i.e. should
minerals become state property and prohibited from leaving
the country? One dilemma of this approach is that if all
countries adopted this legislative policy, all world-wide
museums would be the poorer as they would not have speci-
mens other than those from their own country.
 Is not the discouragement of waste and destruction most
effectively carried out through cooperation and education
rather than restriction and prohibition?
A South African example of the benefit of having non-restric-
tive policies on collecting minerals is provided by type-locality

Table 1
Summary categorization of rare geological specimens.

Rarity category Summary description Rarity status Examples

Few known species Self-explanatory Very rare Stottite from Tsumeb Mine, Namibia
Once rare species now New discoveries produce a plethora of once-rare species Very rare becomes Vanadanite, Morocco; cavanisite, India
common common
Habit Unusual external form of crystals, atypical for the species Very rare Octahedral garnet, Kalahari Mn-field
Pseudomorphism Replacement of one mineral species by another Rare to relatively Malachite after azurite; datolite after kutnahorite
common
Variety of species Chemical variation of common species Very rare to rare Pb-aragonite (variety tarnowitzite); cupro-
descloizite
Colour variant Unusual colour for particular species Very rare to rare Red beryl; orange inesite
Size Extraordinary large crystals of normal, smaller sized specimens Very rare to very Giant quartz and feldspar crystals
common
Quality/aesthetics Outstanding quality, the best known example(s) Very rare Specimen with ikonic status
Locality Species seldom found at a particular locality, but relatively Very rare to rare Chalcopyrite from the Kalahari manganese field
common elsewhere
Associations Seldom-found groups of minerals Rare to common Tourmaline-barite-pyrite on a single specimen
Extinct locality Locality or source exhausted Very rare to relatively Messina Mine; Tsumeb mine
rare
Inclusions One or more mineral included in a common species Very rare to very Kaolinite-chlorite-fuchsite in quartz
common
Unusual features Atypical characteristics of minerals Rare to common Luminescence (fluorescent; phosphorescence);
twinned crystals
 Author's personal copy
B. Cairncross / Resources Policy 36 (2011) 204–213
species discovered in the Kalahari manganese field. Type species
are important to science as they broaden the knowledge base
of mineralogy. Almost without exception, every type-species
originating from the manganese mines in the past 30 years was
first acquired by an educated, amateur mineral collector who
recognized unusual characteristics in their specimens. Collabora-
tion between the amateur and professional mineralogists then
ensued. The latter subsequently did the research and analyses and
published the description of these new species. Restrictive poli-
cies prohibiting collecting these specimens would have made the
science of mineralogy all the poorer.
Discussion and recommendations
Any ‘‘rare geological specimen’’ can meet one or more of the
criteria listed in Table 1. The policing, enforcing and application of
the NHRA would require experts who have thorough mineralogi-
cal knowledge and who are competent to pass judgment on any
or all of these criteria. This would be true for any country
considering similar legislation. From the NHRA standpoint, if the
assumption can still be made that ‘‘rare geological specimens’’ in
their complex guises can be defined, a check-list of rare geological
specimens would have to be compiled to act as the reference base
for the enforcement of the NHRA. There can be no control on the
collection, sale or export of rare geological specimens unless a
specific list of specimens is available to SAHRA inspectors or
customs officials. Furthermore, this list would have to be
continually and regularly updated if and when new rare geologi-
cal specimens are discovered, when rare specimens may lose their
rarity status or common species become rare, based on one or
more of the criteria discussed. It would be extremely difficult if
not impossible, to maintain such a database.
Furthermore, the NHRA is at odds with South Africa’s current
Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) of
2002. This Act, under one of its definition clauses states:
‘‘Mineral’’: means any substance, whether in solid, liquid or
gaseous form, occurring naturally in or on the earth or in or
under water and which was formed by or subjected to a
geological process, and includes sand, stone, rock, gravel, clay,
soil and any mineral occurring in residue stockpiles or in
residue depositsy..’’
Therefore, ‘‘rare geological specimens’’ fall under the definition
of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act as they
are all minerals. Any operating mine or activity that is extracting
‘‘minerals’’ is therefore contravening the NHRA because undoubt-
edly, some of the operations will periodically mine, process and
destroy rare geological specimens. The corollary is that the
MPRDA takes precedence over the NHRA and rare geological
specimens have no protection if they are exploited by activities
related to legal exploitation of South Africa’s mineral resources.
This dilemma needs to be addressed. One way to do so, would be
to have an amendment to the NHRA wherein is stated that mines
operating under the jurisdiction of the MPRDA are exempt from
the ‘‘rare geological specimens’’ clause as exploitation of ore bodies
cannot but mine and destroy rare specimens from time to time.
The legislation posed by the Diamond Act and Precious Metals Bill
is not of much consequence with regards rare geological speci-
mens. These two acts are specific in their nature by outlawing the
illegal ownership of uncut diamonds and unwrought precious
metals, and these two matters are vigorously policed by the South
African authorities. If gold and diamonds are deemed to be rare
geological specimens, then the penalties for illegal and/or
unauthorized ownership are virtually foolproof under the current
legislation.
211
The most obvious and fundamental way to resolve the NHRA/
MPRDA issue is to delete all reference to ‘‘rare geological specimens’’
from the NHRA. However, this was attempted and failed. During the
run-up to the promulgation of the NHRA in 1999, there was
consultation and engagement with the public and interested parties
for comments on the proposed Act. At that time (1997), the
Geological Society of South Africa via its Conservation Committee
Chairman, the Gemmological Association of South Africa (GEMSA)
and the president of the Federation of South African Gem and
Mineralogical Societies (FOSAGAMS) all the lobbied using reasoned
argument and recommended that the ‘‘rare geological specimens’’
clause NOT be included in the pending Act (correspondence in
possession of the author). This recommendation was sent to the
South African Heritage Resources Agency in Cape Town and it was
ignored without explanation. Therefore, learned opinion of experts
and organizations was rejected, resulting in the current problema-
tical issues where rare geological specimens are not defined by the
NHRA and where there is now conflicting legal status between this
act and the MPRDA.
Under the current dispensation, mining companies are
undoubtedly unaware of the ‘‘rare geological specimens’’ clause in
the NHRA. Should mine operators seek out rare geological speci-
mens in their ore bodies and salvage these, after applying to SAHRA
for the necessary collection permits? This is highly unlikely
because a mine’s primary function is to produce ore, to avoid
disturbances in continuity of mining at all costs and not to salvage
specimens. Most mines do the opposite and prohibit workers from
collecting minerals. Even so, over the years, and particularly prior
to the nineteen eighties, many mines donated mineral specimens
and geological samples to national museums, a process that has
virtually fallen away in the past 30–40 years. This is unfortunate
because most of South Africa’s geology museums core collections
originated from such generosity. In other countries such as
America, some operating mines allow collector companies access
to their mine property if and when important mineral discoveries
are made, be they rare or common minerals (Wilson, 1976). This
enlightened approach serves two purposes. Firstly, it allows the
preservation of this specific geological heritage. Secondly, both the
mine and collector company benefit financially as the former is
usually paid a fee while the latter sells the collected minerals for
profit. Such collector company personnel have to meet all the
safety and corporate governance requirements of the mine before
they are allowed access. Only one such example exists in South
Africa at present, and that is at one of the manganese mines in the
Kalahari manganese field located in the Northern Cape Province
(Balayer, 2010).
The following recommendations would provide for a more
enlightened approach to South African portable, ex situ
geoheritage:
 Instead of legislating and outlawing the collection of rare
geological specimens, government should establish a fund/
agency to purchase such specimens if and when they appear
on the market and then donate these to the South Africa’s
national geological museums.
 Enforced legislation will discourage mineral collecting in
general. There should be no legislation prohibiting the collect-
ing of rare geological specimens as this only drives the activity
underground via clandestine trading. Furthermore, if there
was no mineral collecting community in South Africa acquir-
ing, cataloguing and preserving mineral specimens, then these
minerals would be lost forever. The Act would therefore
achieve exactly the opposite of its stated goal, non-preserva-
tion, because there are few, if any, professional mineralogists
interested in systematic mineralogy and fewer still who are
active field collectors. Amateurs are the driving force.
 Author's personal copy
212 B. Cairncross / Resources Policy 36 (2011) 204–213
 The mines and old mine dumps are the largest sources of rare
geological specimens in South Africa. Mine owners could have
some form of incentive (not an Act of parliament) to donate
geological specimens to museums, perhaps a tax incentive or a
donation tax incentive.
 Although not the subject of this article, meteorites also enjoy
legal protection under the NHRA. The conundrum regarding
protected status and freedom to collect is highlighted if one
considers the number of documented meteorites from South
Africa. There are less than 40 South African and Namibian
registered falls (witnessed) or finds (specimens found, date of
fall unknown) and none classified in last 20 years, primarily
because the public is aware of the law that protects meteorites
and has no interest in them. Compare these statistics with
another African country, Morocco, where more than 20,000
falls and finds have been registered in the last 10 years alone
because there is no restriction (McKenzie, personal commu-
nication, April, 2011).
Conclusions
Based on the current National Heritage Resource Act—NHRA
(1999) in South Africa, objects and sites of national heritage
importance are protected by law. Included in these resources are
‘‘rare geological specimens’’ which, through the power of the Act,
are theoretically protected. Shortcomings of this legislation are
that ‘‘rare geological specimens’’ are neither defined nor described
in the NHRA and it is further debatable whether these objects are
of cultural heritage importance as defined by the Act. The NHRA is
in conflict with certain clauses of the Mineral and Petroleum
Resources Development Act which allows exploitation of all
minerals irrespective of rarity.
Categorizing rare geological specimens is multifaceted and at
least thirteen categories of rarity and combinations thereof are
defined in this article. The simple and most commonly accepted
definition of rarity, i.e., very few known species, is too simplistic
for rare geological mineral resources. That rare geological speci-
mens have value is inarguable. Some have scientific value, and in
other cases, intrinsic rarity value and economic value as well. If
they require state protection, which is debatable, then they
should be covered by an alternative policy document that does
not rely on cultural heritage resources as its criteria and wherein
these portable ‘‘geoheritage’’ objects are defined, such as the
rarity definitions proposed in this article. However, free-market
supply-and-demand conditions for geological specimens have
existed in South Africa and in most other countries for decades.
These non-restrictive conditions have allowed collecting, trading
and exchange of geological specimens that have enriched
museums and private collections world-wide and that have
immeasurably enhanced the science of mineralogy. This environ-
ment should prevail. If not, mineralogy and general knowledge
and appreciation of minerals, rare or otherwise, would suffer the
consequences of restrictive legislation.
Acknowledgements
This article is based upon work partially supported financially
by the National Research Foundation (NRF). Any opinions, find-
ings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this
article are those of the author and therefore the NRF does not
accept liability in regard thereto.
References
Adams, F.D., 1995. Medieval literature. The Mineralogical Record 26, 23–42.
Balayer, P., 2010. Mineral specimen exploitation in the Kalahari manganese field.
In: Proceedings of the Third Southern African Mineral Symposium, Council for
Geoscience, Pretoria, South Africa (Abstract), 20 November 2010, p. 11.
Bancroft, P., 1973. The World’s Finest Minerals and Crystals. Thames and Hudson,
London.
Bancroft, P., 1984. Gem and Crystal Treasures. Western Enterprises, Fallbrook,
California, USA.
Bevins, R.E., 1994. A mineralogy of Wales. National Museum of Wales, Geological
Series No. 16, Cardiff.
Brazeau, E.G., Brazeau, L.S., 1987. Standard Mineralogical Catalogue, eighth ed.
Mineralogical Studies, Kernersville, North Carolina, USA.
Brocx, M., Semeniuk, V., 2010. The geoheritage significance of crystals. Geology
Today 26, 216–225.
Cairncross, B., 1986. Evaluating mineral specimens. South African Lapidary
Magazine 18 (2), 24–26.
Cairncross, B., 1991. The Messina mining district, South Africa. The Mineralogical
Record 22, 187–199.
Cairncross, B., 2004. Field Guide to Rocks and Minerals of Southern Africa. Struik
Publishers, Cape Town, South Africa.
Cairncross, B., Dixon, R., 1995. Minerals of South Africa. Geological Society of South
Africa, Johannesburg.
Cairncross, B., Beukes, N.J., Gutzmer, J., 1997. The Manganese Adventure. Asso-
ciated Ore & Metal Corporation, Johannesburg.
Cook, R.B., 1979. The occurrence of Japan-Law twinning in quartz. The Miner-
alogical Record 10, 137–146.
Cooper, M.P., Stanley, C.J., 1990. Minerals of the English Lake District Caldbeck
Falls. British Museum (Natural History), London, UK.
Daltry, V.D.C., 1991. African type-mineralogy: a general review (1838–1988).
Journal of African Earth Sciences 13, 313–322.
Daltry, V.D.C., 1992. Type Mineralogy of Namibia, Bulletin 1. Directorate Geolo-
gical Survey, Ministry of Mines and Energy, Windhoek, Namibia.
Daltry, V.D.C. 1997. Mineralogy of South Africa: Type-mineral Species and Type-
mineral Names. Handbook 15, Geological Survey of South Africa, Pretoria,
South Africa.
Desautels, P.E., 1972. Gems in the Smithsonian. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington, DC.
Diamonds Act, 1986. Government Gazette, vol. 514, No. 30942, with amendments
No. R. 386 (2008), Cape Town, South Africa.
Dons, J.A., 1977. Guest Editorial: minerals, museums and amateurs. The Miner-
alogical Record 8, 253–262.
Embrey, P.G., Symes, R.F., 1987. Minerals of Cornwall and Devon. British Museum
(Natural History), London.
English, G.L., 1927. The scientific valuation of minerals. American Mineralogist 12,
197–209.
Francis, C.A., 1982. Harvard gold. The Mineralogical Record 13, 355–357.
Frondel, C., 1935. The size of crystals. American Mineralogist 20, 469–473.
Garcı́a-Ruiz, J.M., Villasuso, R., Ayora, C., Canals, A., Otálora., M., 2007. Formation of
natural gypsum megacrystals in Naica, Mexico. Geology 35, 327–330.
Gebhard, G., 1999. Tsumeb: A Unique Mineral Locality. GG Publishing, Grossen-
seifen, Germany.
Griffin, W.L., Garmo, T., Løvenshiold, H., Palmstrøm, A., 1997. Anatase from
Norway. The Mineralogical Record 8, 266–271.
Harlow, G., 2009. Gaga over gems. Elements 5, 200.
Hatipoğlu, M., 2010. Gem quality diaspore crystals as an important element of the
geoheritage of Turkey. Geoheritage 2, 1–13.
Hayward, B.W., 2009. Protecting fossil sites in New Zealand. In: Lipps, J.H., Granier,
B.R.C. (Eds.), PaleoParks—The Protection and conservation of fossil sites
worldwide. Carnets de Géologie/Notebooks on Geology, Brest, Book 2009/03
(Chapter 05) (CG2009_BOOK_03/05), pp. 49–64.
Heriot-Watt University, 2002. Palaeontological Resources in England and Scot-
land: Assessing the requirement for the Regulation of Collecting Activities.
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report F98AC113.
Heritage Auction Galleries 2008. The Daniel Trinchillo Sr. Collection of Minerals.
Natural History Auction, Dallas, Texas, 28 September 2008.
Jahn, S., Bode, R., Lyckberg, P., Medenbach, O., Lierl, H., 2003. Marokko—Land der
schönen Mineralien und Fossilien. Bode Verlag GmbH, Haltern, Germany.
Leman, M.S., Reedman, A., Pei, C.S., 2008. Geoheritage of East and Southeast Asia.
Ampang Press SDN, BHD, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Lipps J.H., 2009. PaleoParks: our paleontological heritage protected and conserved
in the field worldwide. In: Lipps, J.H., Granier, B.R.C. (Eds.), PaleoParks—The
Protection and Conservation of Fossil Sites Worldwide. Carnets de Géologie/
Notebooks on Geology, Brest, Book 2009/03, Chapter 1 (CG2009_BOOK_03/01),
pp. 1–10.
Liu, G., 2006. Fine Minerals of China. AAA Minerals AG, Switzerland.
Mineral and Petroleum Resources Act, 2002. Government Gazette No. 23922, Act
No. 28, 2002, Cape Town, South Africa.
Modreski, P.J., Waychunas, G.A., 1996. FM-MSA-TGMS-FMS Tucson mineralogical
symposium abstracts: fluorescence and luminescence in minerals. The Miner-
alogical Record 27, 21–30.
Moore, T.P., 2007. Alpine quartz gwindels. The Mineralogical Record 38, 103–121.
National Heritage Resource Act, 1999. Government Gazette, vol. 406, No. 19974,
Cape Town, South Africa.
Ottens, B., 2003. Minerals of the Deccan traps, India. The Mineralogical Record 34,
1–82.
Panczner, W.D., 1987. Minerals of Mexico. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company,
New York.
 Author's personal copy
B. Cairncross / Resources Policy 36 (2011) 204–213
Pena dos Reis, R., Henriques, M.H., 2009. Approaching an integrated qualification
and evaluation system for geological heritage. Geoheritage 1, 1–10.
Petersen, O.V., Deliens, M., Kampf, A.R., Schubnel, H.-J., Sutherland, F.L., 1994.
World Directory of Mineral Collections. (Commission on Museums and
The International Mineralogical Association). The Mineralogical Record Inc.,
Tucson, AZ, USA.
Pezzotta, F., 1999. Madagascar: a mineral and gemstone paradise. Extra Lapis
English No. 1, Lapis International, East Hampton, CT, USA.
Precious Metals Bill, 2005. Republic of South Africa, Government Printer, Pretoria
[B30D-2005], ISBN:0-621-34733-7.
Rakovan, J., Waychunas, G.A., 1996. Luminescence in minerals. The Mineralogical
Record 27, 7–19.
Ream, L.R., 1979. The Thomas Range, Wah Wah Mountains, and vicinity, Western
Utah. The Mineralogical Record 10, 261–278.
Richards, R.P., 1990. The origin of faden quartz. The Mineralogical Record 21,
191–201.
Rickwood, P.C., 1981. The largest crystals. American Mineralogist 66, 885–907.
Robbins, M., 1994. Fluorescence, Gems and Minerals Under Ultraviolet Light.
Geoscience Press, Inc., Missoula, MT, USA.
Sauer, J.R., 1982. Brazil Paradise of Gemstones. Gemological Institute of America,
Carlsbad, California, USA.
Smith Jr., A.E., 1995. Regional mineralogies of the world. The Mineralogical Record
26, 113–134.
Smith, B., 1991. Diversity: Guest editorial. The Mineralogical Record 22, 410–411.
Sotheby’s, 2001. The Magnificent Mineral Collection of Joseph A. Freilich. Catalo-
gue. New York, January 11 and 12, 2001.
Staebler, G.A., Wilson, W.E., 2008. American Mineral Treasures. Lithographie LLC,
East Hampton, Connecticut, USA.
View publication stats
213
Thompson, W.A., 2007. Ikons classic and contemporary masterpieces. The Miner-
alogical Record Supplement 38 (1), 192.
Tindle, A.G., 2008. Minerals of Britain and Ireland. Terra Publishers.
Von Bezing, K.-L., 2007. Namibia Minerals and Localities. Bode Verlag GmbH,
Haltern, Germany.
Wenk, H.-R., Bulakh, A., 2004. Minerals: Their Constitution and Origin. Cambridge
University Press, United Kingdom.
White, J.S., 1991. The Smithsonian Treasury Minerals and Gems. Smithsonian
Institution Press, Washington, DC.
Wilson, W.E., 1971. Classic localities: the Apache mine. The Mineralogical Record
2, 252–258.
Wilson, W.E., 1976. Collector companies. The Mineralogical Record 7, 98–99.
Wilson, W.E., 1977a. Notes from the editor. The Mineralogical Record 8, 264.
Wilson, W.E., 1977b. Tsumeb!. The Mineralogical Record 8, 128.
Wilson, W.E., 1990. Connoisseurship in minerals. The Mineralogical Record 21,
7–12.
Wilson, W.E., 1994. The History of mineral collecting 1530–1799. The Miner-
alogical Record 25, 1–264.
Wilson, W.E., 1995. Mineral books—five centuries of mineralogical literature. The
Mineralogical Record 26, 1–192.
Wilson, W.E., 2004. The discerning eye: what makes a mineral collectible?. In:
Wilson, W.E., Bartsch, J.E., Mauthner, M. (Eds.), Masterpieces of the Mineral
World. The Houston Museum of Natural Science and The Mineralogical
Record. Harry N. Abrams, Inc., New York, pp. 10–31.
Wilson, W.E., Bartsch, J.A., Mauthner, M., 2004. Masterpieces of the Mineral World.
The Houston Museum of Natural Science and The Mineralogical Record. Harry
N. Abrams, Inc., New York.
Wilson, W.E., Dunn, P.J., 1978. Famous mineral localities: the Kalahari manganese
field. The Mineralogical Record 22, 137–153.