The Mineral Collection of the University of Michigan: its History and Future

The mineral collection at the University of Michigan is among the oldest and finest in the Great Lakes region. The collection was created in 1838 with the purchase, under Douglass Houghton, one of the first professors at the University of Michigan, of 2,600 specimens, largely of European origin, from Baron Louis von Lederer of Vienna. This was one of the first major purchases by the Board of Regents. The collection was actively curated and continued to grow under the direction of Edward H. Kraus, one of the founders of the Mineralogical Society of America and the Chair of the then separate Department of Mineralogy. The collection is the repository for specimens collected by Douglass Houghton, as well as specimens collected during the first geological survey of Michigan. Specimens from Michigan's Keweenaw copper district are of exceptional quality, mainly due to the world-class specimens donated by then Regent L. L. Hubbard between 1917 and the mid-1920s. There is also a significant suite of fine Sicilian sulfur specimens collected during the Ph.D. research of Professor Walter F. Hunt. Other important suites include the Stuart H. Perry Meteorite collection, the Frederick S. Stearns gemstone collection, and a suite of Antarctic rock samples collected during the Byrd expedition in 1928-30. The collection also has a wide variety of worldwide specimens, mostly of reference quality, although there are several hundred excellent to world class pieces that do not fit into the core suites. Overall, the collection contains approximately 15,000 mineral specimens, about 1,000 meteorites, and several thousand gemstones and related materials. Although the collection continued to be an important part of the teaching and research efforts after the Departments of Mineralogy and Geology were merged in 1961, the collection was little used and without active curation through the latter half of the 20th Century. Recently, the University has initiated an inventory process prior to determining the fate of the Collection. The range of options are driven by the research needs of the Department, which have changed substantially in recent years, as well as the need for financial support and space in order to properly curate and preserve the collection. A major issue is how one weighs the historical, scientific and aesthetic value of such a collection against the mission and financial demands of the University.