Found on eBAY_ Maireener shell necklace - Australia, Melbourne

It’d be interesting to know about any additional provenance for this necklace. It appears to be in very good condition.As for the rarity of these necklaces it now seems that this kind of necklace in particular were made ‘commercially’ in quite large numbers in the late 19th C early 20th C by non-Aboriginal makers. This was mostly in Hobart it seems – see earlier posts here.

It also seems that during that time the numbers produced were indeed quite large based upon the evidence of a court case in Hobart 1907 where one John Ward was found guilty of stealing approx 100 dozen of what seems to be this kind of necklaces from the Hobart Wharf. More information can be found on all this in earlier posts.

The QUALITY of this necklace here seems to be very good but as with other such necklaces, unless there is clear and unambiguous provenance for its Aboriginal authenticity, increasingly its authenticity should be regarded as “ambiguous” if Aboriginal authenticity is the value determinant.

There are necklaces in collections – private and public, Australian and internatinal – with clear Tasmanian Aboriginal cultural produdution authenticity – contemporary, vintage and antique. However, it now seems that circumstantial evidence by itself would be insufficent to claim "Tasmania Aboriginal authenticity."

Vintage Aboriginal Mairreener Mariner Shell Necklace

Auction Ended 18 Dec, 2009 19:59:34 AEDST – 13 bids Winning bid: AU $405.00

Seller info: scrimshaw01 (99.8% Positive feedback)
Item number: 380186076930 Item location: Melbourne, VIC, Australia

Found on eBAY: Maireener Shells – Australia WA

Interestingly here, the seller also says that "These shells sell for between $2000 and $3000 for a 180 centimetre strand in Australian art galleries." This in combination with other text (see image above) seems to suggest that it is Aboriginal authenticity (evidenced or other) that will be lending value to this item. It is worth noting that the shell necklaces that are bringing the prices suggested here are generally made by contemporary Tasmanian Aboriginal women who are carrying forward a family and cultural tradition. The provenance, and thus the necklace's authenticity, is absolutely clear here. This plus the quality of the necklaces combine and is reflected in the values attributed to them.

The problem that needs to be acknowledged with these items when sold as 'collectibles' and described as either "antique" or "vintage" is that new and unfolding information suggests that circumstantial evidence is by-and-large insufficient to assert Aboriginal authenticity.

If there is clear provenance, and there is within Tasmanian Aboriginal families, circumstance and oral histories can be relied upon to assert authenticity – see earlier posts. The shell necklaces made by Tasmanian Aboriginal people are now regarded as "Cultural Heritage Icon" status in Tasmania but this depends upon Aboriginal authenticity.

The seller here relies upon museums holding such necklaces in their collections thus by implication suggesting that this can be relied upon in underwriting authenticity. For many of these 'museum necklaces' there is indeed clear authenticity – generally contemporary examples with named makers. Nonetheless, there are some necklaces in various museums – Australia & elsewhere possibly – for which their authenticity is ambiguous.

None of this takes anything away from the quality of the shells or the visual aesthetic appeal of these necklaces. If their 'value' depends on this alone there is no problem. Something is always worth what is paid for on this criteria! However, if value depends upon 'Aboriginal authenticity' there are unresolved issues to be addressed. This is a work in progress.

SOLD
Bidding Ended: 23 Dec, 2009 @ 01:59:01 AEDST
2 Bids & Winning Bid: AU $91.50

Found on eBAY: Maireener Shells USA

This eBAY sale is interesting in various ways. The evidence for these shells being all that is claimed for them is very strong. It is noteworthy that 'Aboriginality' is not invoked directly albeit that by implication it is with the use the name 'maireener'. Again, it is interesting how this Tasmanian Aboriginal word has won currency on eBAY. The 'exotic otherness' would seem to be at work here in adding value to a group of shells that might otherwise be discarded given their condition.

Was this necklace made by a Tasmanian Aboriginal maker? As yet it seems that there is no way of knowing – and it does seem that these shells were once a part of a 'necklace'. But perhaps here this is not quite the most interesting question to be asked. Rather we might ask, was it the shells' inherent pearlescent lustre that is 'the attractor' or is it the latent 'Tasmanian stories' that are invoked, and carried by the shells, that is the point? Indeed, to what extent might these stories be known in California where this sale originates – overtly or subliminally.

Found on eBAY: Shell Necklace – USA

INFORMATION CHECK:

"Antique .. circa 1910": Possibly but could be much later ... " Tasmanian Aboriginal": Almost certainly not ... most likely somewhere tropical ... Hawaii? ... The Philippines? ... " maireener shell necklace": Certainly not ... "color and lustre natural": Quite likely ... Reference to this type of shell necklace on THIS LINK has been misinterpreted.

There are so many inconsistencies here yet in some ways the misreadings made outside the cultural context within which a cultural product belongs are forever likely. It is even happening in Tasmania but the 'misreadings' come with very local imperatives to do with complex issues.

The somewhat curious thing with this offering is the use of the word "maireener" and its currency on eBAY. The evidence is beginning to stack up for this being "a convenient truth". Why? What is so convenient? Albeit convenient, if that is what is reflected here, the paucity of research behind the word's use is starting to look like it is something other than curious.

Found on eBAY: Shell Necklace – UK

If this necklace is circa 1920s as suggested it is as likely to be a 'Hobart Necklace' as it is to be of Tasmanian Aboriginal production. It now seems that there may have been a number of dealers in Hobart in the 1920s who could have been responsible for the export of this necklace to the UK – and other places it may have traveled to on its way to the UK. Equally it may have arrived in the UK by a variety of other means – as a souvenir, as a gift, etc. etc.

Nonetheless this necklace could have been made by a commercial producer anytime between the late 1800s and up until the 1960s possibly. Of course it may have been made by an Aboriginal woman but without clear provenance that seems unlikely. However, such necklace are still being made by Tasmanian Aboriginal women.

It is interesting however how these necklaces have held 'Tasmanian Aboriginal currency' almost against all odds. Tasmanian Aboriginal people must be among the most 'denied' communities in Australia. In Tasmania at the time that this necklace may have been made (1920s) Truganini's skeleton was on display in the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery and the myth that she was the 'last Tasmanian Aborigine' had popular currency in the Tasmanian community.

The image of Truganini wearing such a necklace is almost ubiquitous in Tasmania – and in its museums up until today. It turns out that Tasmania's museums have played an important part in interpreting and misrepresenting the Truganini story and other aspects of Tasmanian Aboriginal history and cultural production. It is only recently that the full dimension of the decimation and dispossession of Tasmania's Aboriginal people has begun to be approached. Much is left to be told.

The fact that a long way away from Tasmania necklaces such as this one somehow carry the 'Tasmanian story' lends substance to the convenient and a somewhat comfortable (romantic?) vision of Tasmania's colonial history is more than interesting. The fact that it turns up in banal situations like a sale on eBAY, and with no real provenance, has a certain poignancy.

THE DILEMMA: Cultural Heritage Icon or Tasmaniana

CLICK ON THE IMAGE FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THIS NECKLACE

THE DILEMMA: If this necklace's value depends upon its Aboriginal authenticity its authenticity needs to be established. If that is not possible – as it seems it may not be for a variety reason – there may be a problem if the circumstantial evidence is ambiguous – here it seems to be. The collector here seems to have defaulted to 'the wisdom of the time (1984)' and arguably with relatively good reason to do so. Indeed, he says he "bought these in the Eighties from Lawsons Auctions Sydney or from an old collection." So it seems that this necklace was by-and-large 'collected' for inherent qualities rather than its provenance.

In line with the conventions of the time it seems it was assumed that this necklace was as it appeared to be. In the absence of contradictory information that seems a reasonable assumption. Albeit that it would be quite possibly an unsafe assumption if 'value' depends upon the necklace's Aboriginality or its exotic otherness or even its 'Tasmanianness' – even if in the latter case there is still no evidence to suggest otherwise.

However, if new information comes to light that might question the balance of probability in regard to the circumstantial evidence, then arguably there has been a paradigm shift and the inquiry is in new territory. The 'John Ward Hobart Necklace Robbery [Trial 1908]' seems to change the circumstantial evidence. Given the number of dealers that may now be identified as a result of the digitisation of colonial newspapers (19th & 20th C) it now seems that:

1. Shell necklaces of the kind illustrated here were being made in relatively small numbers by Tasmanian Aboriginal women for cultural purposes and sometimes to be sold to generate supplementary income – it seems mostly on the Furneaux Islands – and continue to be made by them in various place around Tasmania;
   
2. Shell necklaces of the kind illustrated here were being produced commercially, and in large numbers, by non-Aboriginal makers;
3. These shell necklaces – 'Hobart Necklaces' – were being sold throughout Tasmania and being exported in large numbers to mainland Australia as well as abroad – notably Hawaii;
4. The trade in commercially mass produced 'Hobart Necklaces' seems to have been reasonably lucrative and going on possibly as early as 1860, 1875 certainly, 1875 to WW1 and possibly intermittently between WW1 & WW2 and again post WW2 and possibly into the 1960s.

This information in no way discounts the production of shell necklaces – 'maireeners' – that has been a continuous and evolving cultural practice carried on up until the present by Tasmanian Aboriginal people.

The are two distinct activities going on – one Aboriginal and the other non-Aboriginal – and the relationship between the two is yet to be fully explored.

Nonetheless, the ways these necklaces are marketed in the Aboriginal art and antique markets is an issue. It is clear that the Aboriginal status adds value to these necklaces. This has been recently reinforced in Tasmania by the National Trust nominating "the shell necklaces made by Tasmanian Aboriginal women" as Cultural Heritage Icons. Indeed this can be taken as wider community acknowledgement that a necklace's Aboriginal status does in fact add value to it – its Aboriginal cultural cargo is of interest and in turn this lend value to it.

Historically, the context in which Aboriginal status does add value needs to explored in more depth. There is no longer all that much conjecture about the authenticity of the contemporary necklaces– 'maireeners' –made by Tasmanian Aboriginal women. Rather, any diffidence and doubt seems to be bound up in the complex, and somewhat uncomfortable, histories played out in Tasmania in respect to Tasmania's Aboriginal people – and the ongoing social and cultural tensions that come with all that.

Museums in Tasmania have had a particularly uncomfortable relationship with the Tasmanian Aboriginal community. While more productive discourses have begun in the past decade or so the tensions are still evident.

Museums are contentious places. In Tasmania when it comes to negotiating Tasmanianness and authenticity in a museum contentiousness is never far away.

Cultural material exhibited in museums claim authority from the place they are located –Tasmania– and the sanctioned status of the 'official' institution. Authenticity is bestowed (deemed?) upon objects presented in museums that in turn relies upon the authenticating powers of the museum. These authenticated objects are a reflection of some curatorial imperative, which in turn depends upon current wisdom. Even though it might be challenged, and sometimes vehemently, the exhibit wears the cloak of authenticity.

The treatment of Aboriginal people in Tasmania and their culture within Tasmania's museums represent the Aboriginal people variously. Just how they are presented is somewhat dependent upon prevailing political imperatives – and at the more comfortable end of historic conjuncture.

Typically, Tasmanian museum exhibits told their intended audience more about the tensions between the essentially Eurocentric imperatives in stories with Aboriginal issues than anything else. Rather than Aboriginal visions of place – Tasmania – or the Aboriginal people, or their cultural realities, typically 'colonial' perspectives have been privileged – to some extent it remains so.

Given all this it aught not be assumed that the ambiguity now attaching itself to some shell necklaces is something that can go unacknowledged. Neither is it something that is unlikely to be tested. Thus, if Aboriginality is important, and it usually is, the provenance of the piece is very important. If what is important is the necklace's Tasmanianness, then provenance is less important as both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal necklaces are quintessential exemplars of Tasmaniana with its colonial subtexts.

It is an open question as to the authenticity of this necklace as Tasmanian Cultural Heritage Icon and possibly even its 'Tasmaniana' status given that the shells can be collected in Victorian and South Australian waters – and possibly further afield as well.

Found on eBAY: Maireener Shell Necklace – Melbourne/AUS

Clearly the seller here had little information available to provide clear provenance – this is typical and has long been so. The price achieved is modest by comparison with similar necklaces made by contemporary Tasmanian Aboriginal women. About two weeks before this sale closed such necklaces with clear Aboriginal provenance were given "Cultural Heritage Icon" status by the National Trust in Tasmania.

The granting of this status seems to do two things:

• Firstly, belatedly acknowledge the Aboriginal cultural continuum embedded in the shell necklaces (maireeners) made by Tasmanian Aboriginal women;
• Secondly, place a new emphasis upon clear Aboriginal provenance when claiming Aboriginal authenticity.

With new information unfolding to do with the commercial production of such necklaces in Tasmania from the late 19th Century up until circa 1960 a new imperative to be clear about authenticity.

eBAY Find – Mairneener Neclace(?) Melb/Australia

PLEASE CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE

Clearly the Aboriginal authenticity of this necklace is ambiguous for all the reasons discussed elsewhere on this site. It is particularly interesting that attention is drawn to the clasp. Anecdotally, this 'closure' has been referred to in regard to Bertie May's production and specifically for his short necklaces. This necklace may well be such a necklace.

Interestingly "MAIREENER SHELL" is used to lend Aboriginal authenticity to this necklace. Given this, it seems that it is seen as being important in winning the asking price – albeit modest. This is especially so now that contemporary shell necklaces, and presumably vintage/antique necklaces also, with clear Aboriginal provenance have 'Cultural Heritage Icon' status. That has been the case in Tasmania since early November 2009.

Since necklaces with clear Aboriginal provenance are achieving sale prices far in excess of that sought for this necklace the implication is there – intended or otherwise.

There is a clear implication here that while this ambiguity might have been accommodated in the past, 'The Ward Case of 1908' changes that somewhat given the number of commercially produced necklaces involved. Indeed it can argued that dealers have an obligation to acknowledge that an alternative to the authenticity claimed is a possibility IF value is dependent upon Aboriginal authenticity.

Furthermore, the ambiguity needs to be acknowledged in many situations where Aboriginal authenticity is being asserted in the light of The Ward Case, its implications and other unfolding information.

Found on eBAY: Maireener Shell Necklace – Australia Qld

From what can be gleaned from the seller's description and the images this necklaces must be regarded as one with ambiguous authenticity. There is nothing sinister in this rather the seller is clearly relying upon information he regarded as reliable – possibly at the time of purchase 1984.

At that time, there is anecdotal evidence that such necklaces were assumed to have been made Tasmanian Aboriginal people – albeit in Tasmania the myth that Truganini was the last of the Tasmanian Aborigines prevailed. In the absence of critical inquiry in the 1980s – Tasmania/Australia – relevant to this cultural material, that may well have seemed a reasonable assumption to make. In the light of more recent information the reliability of information available in the 1980s needs to be questioned and further provenance sought. Sadly, that will not always be available but when it is, typically there are compelling reasons to endorse it.

If this necklace is indeed circa 1950, and there seems little reason to doubt that, it may have been made on the Furneaux Islands by an Aboriginal maker OR in Hobart by an outworker employed by Bertie May or a like dealer in Tasmanian souvenirs. This necklace is consistent with being either.

THE DILEMMA: If this necklace's value depends upon its Aboriginal authenticity its authenticity needs to be established. If that is not possible – as it seems it may not be for a variety reason – there may be a problem if the circumstantial evidence is ambiguous – here it seems to be. The collector here seems to have defaulted to 'the wisdom of the time (1984)' and arguably with relatively good reason.

However, if new information comes to light that might question the balance of probability in regard to the circumstantial evidence, then arguably there has been a paradigm shift and the inquiry is in new territory. The 'John Ward Hobart Necklace Robbery [Trial 1908]' seems to change the circumstantial evidence. Given the number of dealers that may now be identified as a result of the digitisation of colonial newspapers (19th & 20th C) it now seems that:

1. Shell necklaces of the kind illustrated here were being made in relatively small numbers by Tasmanian Aboriginal women for cultural purposes and sometimes to be sold to generate supplementary income – it seems mostly on the Furneaux Islands – and continue to be made by them in various place around Tasmania;
   
2. Shell necklaces of the kind illustrated here were being produced commercially, and in large numbers, by non-Aboriginal makers;
3. These shell necklaces – 'Hobart Necklaces' – were being sold throughout Tasmania and being exported in large numbers to mainland Australia as well as abroad – notably Hawaii;
4. The trade in commercially mass produced 'Hobart Necklaces' seems to have been reasonably lucrative and going on possibly as early as 1860, 1875 certainly, 1875 to WW1 and possibly intermittently between WW1 & WW2 and again post WW2 and possibly into the 1960s.

This information in no way discounts the production of shell necklaces – 'maireeners' – that has been a continuous and evolving cultural practice carried on up until the present by Tasmanian Aboriginal people.

The are two distinct activities going on – one Aboriginal and the other non-Aboriginal – and the relationship between the two is yet to be fully explored. Nonetheless, the ways these necklaces are marketed in the Aboriginal art and antique markets is an issue. It is clear that the Aboriginal status adds value to these necklaces. This has been recently reinforced in Tasmania by the National Trust nominating "the shell necklaces made by Tasmanian Aboriginal women" as Cultural Heritage Icons. Indeed this can be taken as wider community acknowledgement that a necklace's Aboriginal status does in fact add value to it.

Auction Ended

Dec 14, 2009 – 09:51:38 AEDST

8 bids – Winning bid AU $124.00

THE SHELL NECKLACE CASE: The Retrial

WARD RETRIED AND CONVICTED
AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL LIBRARY LINK

The Mercury (Hobart) Wednesday 20 May 1908

John Ward, wharf labourer, was arraigned for the second time on four counts in an indictment for having stolen, or otherwise received, a large quantity of shell necklaces, consigned to a wholesale firm in Sydney by Mr. Paget, fur dealer, Elizabeth Street. At the previous trial the prisoner pleaded not guilty, and the jury failed to agree as to a verdict, whereupon the accused was remanded on bail, to be retried. On this occasion John [Ward] again pleaded not guilty, and was defended by Mr. Harold Crisp, the Solicitor General (Mr. E. D. Dobbie) prosecuting for the Crown.

The witnesses who gave evidence at the previous trial were called, also fresh evidence was given as to identification of the shells. At the former trial the accused's counsel contended that the shells were not satisfactorily identified, so on this occasion the Crown called Messrs. Martin, Barker, and Owens, shell dealers in Hobart, in support of Mr. Pagot's evidence of identification. The defence was that the prisoner received the shells from a man named Fisher at Recherche to sell for him, but Fisher was not called. The jury found the prisoner guilty on the minor count of receiving, with a recommendation to mercy.

Mr. Crisp, in addressing His Honor in mitigation of sentence, handed in several testimonials as to prisoner's previous good character, together with a petition signed by some Hobart merchant to His Honor to deal leniently with him.

Prisoner was remanded for sentence,and an order was made for restitution of the shells to Mr. Paget.

____
ADVERTISEMENT HOBART MERCURY
Monday 2 February 1903

UNDER ROYAL PATRONAGE
J. PAGET.
(Established 1860)

73 ELIZABETH-STREET, HOBART.

LARGEST STOCK of TASMANIAN
FUR GOODS and SHELLS in Australasia.
No connection with any other Furrier.

____

ADVERTISEMENT HOBART MERCURY
Wednesday 2 September 1903

WANTED KNOWN
That we are one of the leading Shell Necklace Manufacturers of Hobart,
and are prepared to execute orders for any quantities.
Orders received and supplied to all parts of the world.
BARKER
Furrier, Taxidermist,
Dealer in Skins, Curios, etc.,
7 Murray Street.
________
ADVERTISEMENT HOBART MERCURY
Tuesday 30 April 1907

THE FUR STORE OF TASMANIA
99a Liverpool St, Hobart
The only comprehensive stock in the Island
We are absolute Manufactures of
Genuine Tasmanian Fur Goods, also
Sable, Marten, Fox, Marmot, etc , etc,
and "The Furs of the Moment " Cleaning,
Dyeing, Alterations, Rug-lining, Taxidermist
Tasmanian Shell Chains wholesale and retail
R. J. OWENS
The Furrier of Hobart,

A SHIFT IN UNDERSTANDING

As 'cyber archeology' increasingly becomes a possibility it will be possible to dredge the writing of the past searching for keywords. Indeed, it is almost upon us and despite the fact that there is a great deal yet to be done it is possible to do a key word search in some of Australia's oldest newspapers.

Nonetheless, searching microfilm is a tedious business even if thus far keyword searches can lead you to a page on specific date. In time these kinds of opportunities to look back will inevitably change the ways we assess the past in order to better sense of where we have come to.

In any event, these four advertisement are a somewhat random sample from Hobart's Mercury. – late 19th C early 20th C. Linked to the Hobart Necklace Robbery 1907/08 these advertisements are beginning to build a picture of a not so small industry based on shell necklace making – and it seems focused upon southern Tasmania.

At the turn of the century Tasmania's population was 175,000 and Hobart's population was a 36,000. This adds some perspective to the production of shell necklaces at the time. It is highly unlikely that the somewhat large numbers that there is increasing evidence for them being produced in does not seem to be for the domestic market. Nevertheless, it is possible that there might well have been such a necklace in a great many households throughout the state.

NB: The Butterfield Advertisement #2 needs some contextualisation. Click on the links to go to earlier postings [1] • [2] Also, Arthur Robert Butterfield was born 22 Feb 1867 and he was a watchmaker, jeweller and optician at 51 Elizabeth Street, Hobart. His private residence was Mortimer Avenue, New Town – Launceston Library, Civic Square, LAUNCESTON TAS 7250, 09.04.09

Shell Necklaces – Theft & Cultural Appropriation

This story in the Hobart Mercury in 1908 is unlikely in one sense yet it brings a rather unexpected dimension to the Hobart Necklace story in another. The first thing about the case that seems a little surprising is the number shell necklaces involved – "more than 100 dozen". By itself this is an indication of the potential size of the commercial shell necklace 'industry' that seems was operating out of Hobart in the late 19th Century, early 20th Century. At the time Tasmania's population was something less than 200,000 people and Hobart's population was less than 40,000. While it seems that M M Martin of Cascade Rd. Hobart & Honolulu were running a substantial enterprise exporting necklaces from Tasmania to "Australasia" and abroad – Honolulu at least. This Supreme Court Case seems to suggest that apart from the Martin enterprise there may well have been two additional operations capable of producing a similar number of necklaces – . Earnest Mawle's report of 1918 implies that there was an industry operating in the Hobart region and his report needed to have been informed by a member(s?) of 'the industry'.

The court case identifies the owner (exporter?) of shell necklaces as "Paget" and there is a reference to "Fisher of Reserche" which suggests that the Martin enterprise had competition. In any event the size of the robbery alone gives some indication of the size of the industry. After that Mawle's report gives the impression that shell necklace making was acknowledged as an industry of a kind albeit that its scale is somewhat hard to estimate.

The estimated value of the "100 dozen shell necklaces stolen" (£71/-/- seventy one pounds) provides some additional clues – approx. £0/1/2 each. This would seem to be wholesale vale considering that in 1905 the Technological Museum in Sydney paid £0/2/6 for a single long necklace – more than double. "The wage for unskilled labourers [1907] was set at seven shillings a day (up from six), with an extra allowance for overtime – LINK."

By any measure the industry could not be regarded as lucrative based on these numbers. At the same time given Tasmania's and Hobart's population at the time it does not appear to be insubstantial. It now seems that a great many shell necklaces were being produced in Tasmania as a part of this industry that relatively little is known about.

Provenance & Authenticity

Tasmanian shell necklaces' combined issues of 'authenticity and Aboriginality' is likely to remain a contentious issue given the paucity of credible provenance documentation that comes with them in general. This is not the case with contemporary Tasmanian Aboriginal maireener shell, and other shell, necklaces. Why? Because they come straight from the maker, or their agent, in general. There may well be others that come onto the market via them or their relatives.

In the end, for the most part what is likely to be available is circumstantial evidence or some credible evidence and documentation. The credibility of any of that will depend upon the circumstances under which it comes to light.

Sydney's Powerhouse Museum checked its records in regard to a necklace in its collection acquired it 1905. Initially it was thought that there was too little information on the accession documentation to be of much use in putting it into context. However, the converse was the case.

CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE

CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE

Given that "Aboriginal authenticity" can no longer be considered 'a given' when assessing these necklaces provenance becomes all important. In the case of this necklace there is nothing to absolutely authenticate it as being Tasmanian Aboriginal cultural material or even colonial non-Aboriginal mass production. However, circumstantial evidence points to the latter rather than the former.

The Powerhouse Museum's necklace might well be a key reference here – see image above. Interestingly in this image the 1905 accession is compared to and contrasted with two other necklaces #93/404/1 & #93/404/1 by Lola Greeno, Launceston, Tasmania, Australia, circa 1993 – click here to go to source. Circumstantially, it seems that due a lack of contrary evidence the 1905 accession was thought to have been, or likely to have been, of Aboriginal origin when it was rediscovered in the collection in 1993.

Given shell necklaces' somewhat iconic connection to the Tasmanian Aboriginal story and prominent ancestral Aboriginal makers such as Truganini and Fanny Cochrane Smith, all this is very understandable.

Until recently, and given the ambiguity of, and paucity of, accession documentation at the time, this necklace may well have been attributed to an unknown Tasmanian Aboriginal maker. However, given the accession date, it is quite likely that this necklace was produced by M M Martin, Hobart & Honolulu given its anecdotal connection to the 'Mawle Report of 1918.' Furthermore, the necklace came into the Powerhouse collection in 1905 in the context of it being "an example of a commercial use of an animal product", again this is consistent with the Mawle Report connection.

CLICK HERE FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Found on eBAY_ Santa Cruz USA

Interestingly this necklace is not being described as being "Aboriginal". Nonetheless, The Companion To Tasmanian History written by Patsy Cameron, a Tasmanian Aboriginal Elder, is quoted to suggest that it may be – as it could be if there were any provenance to support that idea.

The seller has been contacted via eBAY and we await further information about the necklace and any provenance information that may be available. Here are some extracts from the response ..."Thank you for the information on the necklaces, I have learned so much after posting them on Ebay ... I have an antique & jewelry shop ... I was at a local auction and the necklaces were in a bag of jewelry I was bidding on. I love shells myself and I thought these were striking, they are so fluid and beautifully strung. I hope I have not misrepresented the necklaces as being Aboriginal, I had done some research on line, and a couple of my customers who are collectors thought they were."

This it seems this is consistent with the experience of many eBAY sellers especially those living outside Australia. Given that Tasmanian Shell Necklaces have "Icon Heritage Status" if made by Indigenous Tasmanians it is likely that more will come onto the market. Some unscrupulous sellers may even claim that their necklaces are indeed made by a Tasmanian Aboriginal maker. It may well have been BUT there seems that there is no reliable way of knowing this (well not yet) unless the provenance to support the claim is impeccable. The search continues.

Tasmanian Aboriginal Shell Necklaces Win Icon Status inTasmania

CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE

What's in it for anyone if something is dubbed an "icon"? It seems that the National Trust thinks that there is something in it for them, and maybe so. The long and short of this kind of thing is that there is some kind of marketing imperative involved. That's alright so far as that goes but when you look at the list and read the rhetoric that comes with the announcement of such things there has to be a tinge of doubt about the sentiments that may be found lurking around somewhere.

Among the disparate mix of 2009's Tasmanian Heritage Icons there are the "shell necklaces made by Indigenous Tasmanians". In wording the nomination like this there seems to be an acknowledgement that there has long been some unarticulated background knowledge that not all shell necklaces made in Tasmania had or have Aboriginal authenticity.

It could be difficult working out whether or not you are looking at "an icon." Well not really if the there is no clear provenance or certificate of authenticity it seems that the safest thing to do is assume that it doesn't have the credibility that would enable it to be a 'Tasmania Heritage Icon.'

For contemporary work this is something that can be arranged relatively easily but it gets to be whole lot more complex when it comes to Antique & Vintage examples.

NEWS LINKS

• [1 – Mercury H'bt 12.11.09 – Bread, honey icon aim]
• [2 – ABC: 9.11.09 – Tasmanian 'icons' recognised]
  
• [3– Advocate – 9.11.09 Cradle Mountain is `choice' with kids]
• [4 _ ABC: 09.11.09 - Icons Listed ]

FOUND IN TASMANIA: Bertie May Necklaces With Provenance

This necklace comes with a clear provenance plus first hand information and observations. The owner received it as a gift from Bertie May in Hobart in the 1950s. As a young girl she was enlisted to help her grandmother string such necklaces. Her grandmother lived outside Hobart and the owner reports that:

• Her grandmother strung rainbow kelp shell necklaces for Bertie May to supplement the family's income;

• Bertie May regularly supplied her grandmother with relatively large quantities of shells in plastic bags;

• Approximately every two weeks her grandmother would deliver her latest batch of strung necklaces to an address in Macquarie St. Hobart and on school holidays she would go with her to his house/warehouse – it seems that he only sold his products wholesale;

• She recalls that her grandmother was paid one shilling and sixpence for short necklaces and two shillings and sixpence for long necklaces.

This necklace comes from another source in Tasmania and with a clear provenance plus first hand information and observations. The owner received it as a gift from an Uncle by marriage who was a farmer on the Tasman Peninsular in the 1940s-1950s and who collected shells for Bertie May to supplement his farm income.

As a young woman she moved to 'The Peninsular' to farm with her husband and Uncle. Her Uncle gave her this necklace along with others he acquired from Bertie May and made with shells he had harvested for him. The Uncle's shell harvesting technique is a matter of family history and the story goes that he:

• Collected 'Rainbow Kelp' shells (maireener shells) – Phasianotrochus irisodontes – IMAGE BACK LINK – for his Hobart based Tasmanian souvenir manufacturing and wholesaling enterprise.
  
• Had a flat bottomed boat from which he cut kelp from the kelp beds relatively close to the shore;
• Lay the kelp out on the beach in the sun on a canvas(?) to dry thus collecting the shells that dropped from the weed as they died;
• Gathered the shells together and stored where the blowflies were allowed to lay their eggs on the decaying fish;
• Allowed the blowfly's maggots to eat out the shellfish thus 'cleaning' them ready for further treatment;
• Was paid ten shillings a quart (0.95 Litres) of shells, circa 1947, by Bertie May – a 1918 report by Earnest Mawle in the "The Australian Zoologist" – Vol 1 Part 6 Nov. 1918 – on this industry indicated that "a collector can obtain nine quarts of shells per day."
  

CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE

IMAGE & DATA LINK: Shells Used in Contemporary Aboriginal necklace Making

Found via eBAY _ Vintage Tasmanian Kelp Shell/Maireener Necklace – Australia

Click on an image to enlarge it

Click on an image to enlarge it

As for the final selling price for these necklaces we believe that they were moderate no matter what their cultural status may be – Aboriginal, colonial, post WW2 commercial. Whatever their cultural context these necklaces are clearly very ‘collectable’. The restringing cost for such a necklace would not be a great deal less than the price realised.

Indeed, contemporary Maireener Necklaces made by Tasmanian Aboriginal women, and where authenticity and provenance is absolutely clear, these works command prices in excess of most 'commercially produced' “antique” or “vintage” items on eBAY – this is at least the case for those we have watched.

There is further information coming to hand and for those interested in the subject please contact us and we will keep you informed.

BACK LINK TO AN EARLIER POST

For more information please contact the network Email: shellnecklaces@7250.net

Found on eBAY: Maireener Shell Necklace – UK

NOTE: Interestingly the words "Maireener, Tasmanian or Aboriginal" do NOT appear in the description of this piece. They have been used commonly on eBAY in recent times. for necklaces that look like this one Indeed, so commonly that there is a case for the proposition the words are used in a 'value adding exercise' by eBAY sellers.

These shells almost certainly originated in Tasmania and the necklace is typical of necklaces of late 19th & early/mid 20th C commercial production that have been attributed Aboriginal cultural production.

If the circa 1920s is near the mark, this necklace way well have been a part of M M Martins production that was being exported out of Tasmania around that time and earlier. If in fact it was exported to the UK in the 1950s, which it may have been, it may well have been a part of Bertie May's production – more information is coming to light in relation to his operation in the 1950s .

Equally, it may well be an example of 20th C Tasmanian Aboriginal cultural production from the Furneaux Islands. Without clear provenance it is becoming increasingly difficult distinguish between 19th & early/mid 20th C commercial necklace production and Tasmanian Aboriginal cultural production – 19th/20th C.

Typically eBAY sellers have very limited information in regard to provenance when requested to provide any information at all in regard to how they came by these necklaces. This is also the case for when such necklaces turn up at antique auctions in Tasmania.

Information Request: October 09

The question of AUTHENTICITY arises yet again. Here it is relatively clear that the shells are:

1. maireener, Rainbow Kelp, Phasianotrochus irisodontes, shells;
2. relatively mature shells – albeit that due to the vagaries of photographic documentation it is not possible absolutely specific here;
3. more likely to have been collected (commercially harvested?) in Tasmanian waters than elsewhere;
4. natural shells found in Tasmanian waters – almost certainly this necklace has not been dyed;
5. shells of the kind used by Aboriginal necklace makers in Tasmania – however this necklace's Tasmanian Aboriginal cultural must be considered as ambiguous given its provenance;
6. the shells typically used in the kind of necklace known in Tasmania –late 19th C early 20th C – as 'Hobart Necklaces' – this necklace may indeed be such a necklace;
7. typical of the kind shells found in necklaces thought to have been made by Bertie May or even M M Martin – both non-Aboriginal makers Martins, 1875 to 1930s?, Bertie May, late 1940s - 1960s? and Bertie May was known to dye his necklaces.

As above, the shells are almost certainly 'rainbow kelp shells' or ‘maireener’ shells – not mariner. This kind of necklace is beginning to appear on eBAY and elsewhere described as "Tasmanian Aboriginal Maireener Shell Necklaces."

It seems that the word ‘maireener’ has won currency on the Internet most likely via Google Searches etc. In palawa kani (Tasmanian Aboriginal language) the word ‘maireener’ has survived in palawa lore and most frequently until recently used to describe shells. ‘maireener’ also has currency among Tasmanian Aboriginal makers as the word for the string of shells and possibly 'necklaces' of other materials as well. An 1993 example of the word in use for a 'maireener/necklace' that does not include maireener shells or Rainbow Kelp shells, – Phasianotrochus irisodontes shells – is at the Powerhouse Museum in Sydney.

The word "Aboriginal" is quite important to their value. Contemporary Tasmanian Aboriginal makers work command quite high prices and arguably because of the Aboriginal and Tasmanian narratives these necklaces carry.

However, when it comes to older (Antique & Vintage?) necklaces the likelihood of many of these necklaces being of "Aboriginal cultural production" is diminishing as our research progresses – see point 7

For notes on Aboriginal shell necklace making in Tasmania – CLICK HERE