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