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