TASMANIAN SHELL NECKLACE RESEARCH

CONFERENCE PAPER NOW ONLINE – Tasmanian Shell Necklace Making

2010-06-22T14:00:00.004+10:00

Ray Norman's Paper to be presented to the CAIA Conference in Hobart on Thursday June 24 is now online.

CONFERENCE TITLE: Oceanic Passages ... CLICK HERE TO MAKE THE LINK
Venue: School of Art, Hunter St. Hobart
Organisation: CAIA (Colonialism And Its Aftermath) – University of Tasmania
Paper's Title: Truganini's Necklaces ... CLICK HERE TO MAKE THE LINK

The paper discusses the cultural tension linked to necklace making in Tasmania and most specifically those known as 'Hobart Necklaces' and sometime euphemistically as 'Truganini Necklaces'.

Truganini Necklaces

2010-05-12T16:42:00.006+10:00

Click on the image to enlarge

This image came in today for scrutiny and comment. Immediately it was clear that the necklace on the left might be the so-called "Truganini Necklace" held in the South Australian Museum's collection. It would be very surprising if this necklace was indeed made by Truganini given that it is made with "rishells" [rice shells sometimes] as Truganini is unlikely to have had access to these Furneaux Island shells at the time it is reported to have been made.

Truganini may well have been making 'rishell' necklaces at Wybalena on Flinders Island but not at these dates. However women on the Furneaux have to have started using these shells at sometime as they do today and it seems they have been using smaller shells for a very long time post contact when cotton thread and steel needles became available.

The likelihood is that this necklace, and others like it, were euphemistically known as 'Truganini Necklaces’. As likely as not it was made on the Furneaux Islands by one of the Tasmanian Aboriginal women who found themselves there in various circumstances. Also, there is nothing to suggest that Truganini might have been using these shells but it is a possibility albeit an outside one. The circumstantial evidence for Truganini making or owning this necklace seems to be missing.

The necklace on the right could also have originated on the Furneaux Islands as stated given that the shells are most likely juvenile maireener shells. If this is the case, and there is provenance at the TMAG to support that – circumstantial or concrete – then most likely this necklace is a part of that Furneaux Island Tasmanian Aboriginal women’s cultural practice.

Alternatively, given its date, and if there is no provenance information as is often the case, this necklace almost equally could be a ‘Hobart Necklace’ of the period and made by the thousands given that it seems there is growing evidence for that scale of commercial production in Hobart late 19th C early 20th C.

Tasmanian Aboriginal authenticity of production is entirely dependant upon the provenance now – circumstantial & concrete. However there is reason to suspect that there may have been commercial inhibitions in regard to using juvenile shells in Hobart Necklaces. More shells take longer to string and are thus less profitable to make. It seems that necklaces with juvenile shells did turn up in Launceston at “Wonderland Curious & Souvenirs” and, circumstantially, as likely as not this shop was sourcing its necklaces on the Furneaux Islands.

This necklace, without clear provenance, would be typical of the necklaces that are possibly best regarded as ambiguous – albeit quintessential Tasmaniana. It must be said that there is good oral histories that says that Furneaux Island women were selling their shell necklaces in Launceston to various shops and provedores for a very long time. This trade it seems was quite separate from the Hobart Necklace trade.

NB: The description of these necklaces in this publication reflects the best understanding at the time – 1988. In the early 1990s there was an increase in the numbers of necklaces being produced as a part of a cultural development.retrieval project.

The Royal Albert Memorial Museum in Exeter UK returned a provenanced "Truganini Necklaces" to the Tasmania Aboriginal community in 1997.

maireener Shell eBAY Collection

2010-05-10T13:19:00.000+10:00

Hobart Necklaces: eMAIL Alerts

2010-05-06T15:46:00.007+10:00

TMAG eMAIL Alert: click here
Ottawa eMAIL Alert: click here

Interesting eBAY Find

2010-04-25T15:57:00.003+10:00

Click on the image for more information

HOBART & TRUGANINI NECKLACES

2010-02-13T14:52:00.002+11:00

HOBART NECKLACES

Occasional Papers:

Fugitive Shell Necklace Production In Tasmania

2010-02-08T19:51:00.002+11:00

There is increasing evidence for a kind of shell necklace production in Tasmania that is coming to light via oral histories. Albeit a somewhat romantic aberration, ‘native settler’ Tasmanians talk about making shell necklaces and often along the lines of those made by Indigenous Tasmanians and the colonial commercial necklaces that mimicked them.

It seems that by-and-large they were made by a relatively small group of Tasmanians as children, sometimes aided by adult family members, while “holidaying at the beach.” Nonetheless, now that people are beginning to talk more openly about this aspect of family memories, and memorabilia, it seems quite likely that more first and secondhand stories, and firsthand recollections, will emerge. With this a better idea of the scale of the activity will be gleaned.

Seemingly it seems that this activity was prevalent post WW2 when beach side holidaying and recreational day tripping became more possible due to greater access to motor transport and more workers in Australia having statutory holidays. Nonetheless some of these oral histories seem go back much further to the early 20th Century, or even earlier, for one location in northern Tasmania. There some families that were able to travel with relative ease to their beach location by boat to their holiday retreat before motor vehicle access was possible.

By necessity these holidays were somewhat rustic affairs that involved, necessitated even, a certain amount of ‘hunting and gathering’ given the relative remoteness. Apparently this seemed to evoke an atmosphere of ‘going native’.

If the shell necklace making mimicked Indigenous necklace making and at the same time provided a diversion on “wet and windy days”, this is not particularly surprising.

In its romanticism, this activity is relatively innocent and benign. These necklaces were never ‘up for sale’ but interestingly it seems making them is invested with the idea of connectivity to place – Tasmania and Tasmanian beaches in a European cum settler context.

Yet somehow, these necklaces still seem to carry some kind of colonial subtexts to do with Aboriginal dispossession while reflecting Tasmania's settler communities’ yearnings to be connected to place. These stories are ever likely to be very local stories with a colonial flipside of a kind and the kind that oftentimes are likely to be lost.

It has been suggested that some of these necklaces have been unknowingly donated to museums and the National Trust. The network would welcome any further information readers may have.

IN REVIEW

2010-01-09T11:04:00.007+11:00

IN REVIEW
HOBART NECKLACES

Occasional Papers:

NB: Papers listed above will be available online for a limited time

1. The M M Martin enterprise established 1875 LINKS:

2. The 1908 Hobart Necklace Robbery Trial – The theft of 100 Doz shell necklaces stolen from the Hobart Wharf by John Ward LINKS

3. The necklaces advertised – LINK:

4. Bertie May 'Hobart Necklace' maker circa late 1940s-1950s – LINK:

5. Shell Information – LINK:

Shell Necklaces Online

2010-01-08T12:29:00.010+11:00

Click on a link to go to the entry

eBAY has proven to be a useful tool in gaining some kind of perspective on the the ways this kind of necklace is understood and imagined. Below there are links to shell necklaces found on eBay and other online auctions. The links below date from August 30, 2009 until Jan 2010. The searching has not been consistent and is a random sample. A more protracted Internet search is likely to uncover more examples.

Found on eBAY_ Maireener shell necklace - Australia, Melbourne

2009-12-14T10:47:00.006+11:00

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

2009-12-13T17:27:00.005+11:00

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

2009-12-13T10:57:00.002+11:00

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

2009-12-12T18:32:00.003+11:00

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

2009-12-10T19:26:00.006+11:00

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

2009-12-06T11:23:00.003+11:00

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:

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;
Shell necklaces of the kind illustrated here were being produced commercially, and in large numbers, by non-Aboriginal makers;
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;
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

2009-12-05T17:20:00.014+11:00

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

2009-12-05T17:19:00.008+11:00

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

2009-12-05T12:25:00.017+11:00

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.

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;
Shell necklaces of the kind illustrated here were being produced commercially, and in large numbers, by non-Aboriginal makers;
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;
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.

Auction Ended

Dec 14, 2009 – 09:51:38 AEDST

8 bids – Winning bid AU $124.00

THE SHELL NECKLACE CASE: The Retrial

2009-11-21T16:47:00.002+11:00

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

2009-11-18T10:41:00.003+11:00

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

2009-11-14T13:58:00.005+11:00

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

2009-11-13T12:01:00.006+11:00

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

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

2009-11-13T09:28:00.006+11:00

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

2009-11-12T09:19:00.004+11:00

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

FOUND IN TASMANIA: Bertie May Necklaces With Provenance

2009-10-28T15:35:00.008+11:00

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

2009-10-21T10:31:00.002+11:00

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

2009-10-20T09:06:00.001+11:00

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

2009-10-17T06:33:00.001+11:00

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

maireener, Rainbow Kelp, Phasianotrochus irisodontes, shells;
relatively mature shells – albeit that due to the vagaries of photographic documentation it is not possible absolutely specific here;
more likely to have been collected (commercially harvested?) in Tasmanian waters than elsewhere;
natural shells found in Tasmanian waters – almost certainly this necklace has not been dyed;
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;
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;
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

eBAY FIND: October 2009

2009-10-16T12:56:00.003+11:00

CLICK ON THE TEXT ABOVE TO ENLARGECLICK ON AN IMAGE TO ENLARGE

These necklaces were drawn to our attention by another eBAY shopper questioning their authenticity and quality based on other information on this BLOG. We confirmed, restated and summarised the information elsewhere on the BLOG.

The quality of both items is self evident from the photography provided and we have no reason to believe that they have been doctored. Indeed we think this quite unlikely.

As for the final selling price we believe that this is quite moderate no matter what their cultural status may be – Aboriginal, colonial, post WW2 commercial. Whatever their cultural context they are clearly ‘collectable’.

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 “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.

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

Maireener Found On The Internet – Australia 3052, Vic.

2009-09-15T14:55:00.004+10:00

ONLINE AUCTION – SELLERS DESCRIPTION:

Beautiful old set of Tasmanian aboriginal shell necklace.
Double threaded on cotton.
4 Strands in all.
One strand is loose,
Necklace is 42cms long.
Old clasp style.
Shells have a vibrant colour and have a purple tinge.

Auction
Start Time: 13 May. 2009 12:25:17
End Time 20 May. 2009 12:25:17
Status Closed
Reserve Price Not Met

On the balance of probability this piece is less likely to of Aboriginal production and more likely to be of either 'colonial' production – M M Martin – or by Bertie May post WW2. The clasp tends to suggest non-Aboriginal production – BUT it may well have been restrung at some time. If there is no clear provenance to establish 'Aboriginal Authenticity', and there may be, authenticity must be regarded as being ambiguous in light of unfolding evidence concerning these necklaces.

INTERNET FIND – Tasmanian Maireener Shell Necklaces

2009-09-15T01:48:00.007+10:00

LEFT NECKLACE: The seller described this necklace as being an "Antique Aboriginal Tasmanian Maireener Shell Necklace ... Lustrous. ... Irridescent Neon Opal Grey Pink Shells. circa early 1900s. Measures 48 in. Length. Tiny Shells measure 1/4 in. each. Overall preserved nicely few shells have holes"

RIGHT NECKLACE: The seller described this necklace as being an "Antique Aboriginal Tasmanian Maireener Shell Necklace ... very old lustrous irridescent green, blue shell, from around 1900 ... Measures 70 inch length ... Tiny shells measure 1/4 in. each ... Condition very good except for a few shells have some holes ... a very beautiful piece"

AN OBSERVATION: It is interesting how it seems that these necklaces seem to be coming to light via the USA – Hawaii ? – and sometime in the context of them being described as a ‘lei’ and the ‘acquisition’ of a lei as “ the getting of my shells”. There seems to be some connecting points here between ‘Hawaiian traditions’ leis and maireener shells – and possiblly between the Martin family's branch enterprise in Honolulu as well(?).

NOT MAIREENERS – Leis From Hawaii

2009-09-15T00:49:00.007+10:00

Clearly these shells are NOT Tasmanian 'maireener' shells albeit that they are described as such. Nevertheless, they are a part of an important indigenous Hawaiian cultural practice which in many ways parallels Tasmanian shell necklace making.

The "HAWAIIAN" cum "TASMANIAN MAIREENER SHELL" lei/necklace confusion is perhaps understandable but here it might be more to do with 'catching a buyer' than being correct. However, many 'traditional leis' including shells like these continue to command prices exceeding top end Tasmanian shell necklaces – Aboriginal production or non-Aboriginal production.

NB: the pink necklace is almost certainly dyed

CLICK HERE FOR A LINK ON LEI MAKING

Found Via eBAY: Maireener Shell Necklace – USA

2009-09-14T19:26:00.004+10:00

Yet again AUTHENTICITY arises and yes the shells are:

maireener, Rainbow Kelp, Phasianotrochus irisodontes, shells;
the shells are relatively mature shells;
most probably from Tasmanian waters;
natural shells found in Tasmanian waters – BUT this necklace has almost certainly been dyed;
used by Aboriginal necklace makers in Tasmania – BUT this necklace may well not be an authentic Tasmanian Aboriginal cultural product as it was not common, if at all, for Aboriginal makers to dye their shells ;
typical of the kind of necklace known as 'Hobart Neckclaces' – this necklace may indeed be such a necklace ;
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.

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

CLICK HERE TO CHECK OUT WORTHpoint & WORTHopedia

Found On The Internet – A Research Tool

2009-09-14T18:40:00.002+10:00

This is an indication as to how "maireener" – a Tasmanian Aboriginal word – has gained its currency in the wider international community and especially among those who deal in 'collectibles'.

CLICK HERE TO GO TO THE SOURCE

Found On The Internet – NOT Tasmanian or Tasmaniana

2009-09-14T17:36:00.005+10:00

Yet again the AUTHENTICITY issue arises and NO the shells are:

NOT maireener, Rainbow Kelp, Phasianotrochus irisodontes, shells;
NOT from Tasmanian waters – and this necklace has almost certainly been dyed;
NOT used by Aboriginal necklace makers in Tasmania – BUT there are some that are almost like these BUT NOT maireener shells;
possibly the kind of shells F C Martin, son of M M Martin – non-Aboriginal Tasmanian colonial makers 1875 to 1930s? – might have been trading in as a part of the Martin's Honolulu enterprise;

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

CLICK HERE TO CHECK OUT WORTHpoint & WORTHopedia

Found On The Internet – Tasmanian Authenticity

2009-09-14T15:08:00.006+10:00

Yet again AUTHENTICITY arises and yes the shells are:

maireener, Rainbow Kelp, Phasianotrochus irisodontes, shells;
the shells are relatively mature shells;
most probably from Tasmanian waters;
natural shells found in Tasmanian waters – BUT this necklace has most likely been dyed albeit not definitely assessable unless a physical inspection was possible;
used by Aboriginal necklace makers in Tasmania – BUT this necklace may well not be authentically Aboriginal as this was not commonly done by these makers if at all ;
typical of the kind of necklace known as 'Hobart Neckclaces';
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.

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

CLICK HERE TO CHECK OUT WORTHpoint & WORTHopedia

Found On The Internet – Tasmanian Authenticity

2009-09-14T14:23:00.006+10:00

Again the question of AUTHENTICITY arises in regard to these necklaces. Clearly the shells are:

maireener, Rainbow Kelp, Phasianotrochus irisodontes, shells – one may not be but it is obscured by other shells;
the shells are relatively mature shells;
on the balance of probably they were collected in Tasmanian waters;
natural shells found in Tasmanian waters – BUT clearly this necklace has been dyed;
used by Aboriginal necklace makers in Tasmania – BUT this necklace may well not be authentically Aboriginal, see the clasp ;
typical of the kind of necklace that MAY have also been known a 'Hobart Necklace';
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 him most likely.

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

CLICK HERE TO CHECK OUT WORTHpoint & WORTHopedia

Found On The Internet – Tasmanian Authenticity

2009-09-14T11:36:00.005+10:00

The ever present question of AUTHENTICITY arises when necklaces like this one pop up. Yes the shells are:

maireener, Rainbow Kelp, Phasianotrochus irisodontes, shells;
the shells are relatively mature shells;
most probably from Tasmanian waters;
natural shells found in Tasmanian waters;
used by Aboriginal necklace makers in Tasmania – BUT this necklace may well not be an authentic Aboriginal necklace, see the clasp ;
typical of the kind of necklace known as 'Hobart Neckclaces';
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?

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

CLICK HERE TO CHECK OUT WORTHpoint & WORTHopedia

Found On The Internet – Tasmanian Authenticity

2009-09-13T21:10:00.003+10:00

The question of AUTHENTICITY arises when you see things like this. Yes the shells are:

maireener, Rainbow Kelp, Phasianotrochus irisodontes, shells – one may not be but it is obscured by other shells;
a mixture of juvenile and more mature shells;
most probably from Tasmanian waters;
natural shells found in Tasmanian waters – BUT these are dyed in many/most instances;
used by Aboriginal necklace makers in Tasmania – BUT dying in this way is NOT typical of Tasmanian Aboriginal shell necklace making practice, if at all;
typical of the 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?.

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

CLICK HERE TO CHECK OUT WORTHpoint & WORTHopedia

eBAY Find – Maireener Necklace(?) USA

2009-09-13T18:02:00.005+10:00

It is interesting that the seller describes the necklace as being "Aboriginal" and of "maireener shells". There is increasing evidence that such necklaces are NOT BY NECESSITY of 'Aboriginal production.' In fact this necklace is as likely to be:

A 'Hobart Necklace' – made in Hobart anytime between 1875 & the 1960s?
A 'Hobart Necklace' made by M M Martin Hobart & Honolulu (1875 – 1930s?) or Bertie May Hobart (1940s to 1960s) neither of which were Aboriginal.

It is possible that this necklace is of Aboriginal production. However, there is mounting evidence that 'Hobart Necklaces' were made in large quantities between 1875 and the 1960s in Tasmania and exported internationally. Watch this space for the unfolding evidence.

Found on RUBYlane – USA

2009-09-13T16:14:00.003+10:00

Found on www.rubylane.com

eBAY Find – Maireener Necklace(?) USA

2009-09-13T08:54:00.009+10:00

eBAY ITEM: No. 250410206595
Seller's Code: judah-ok ( 1617) 100%
CLICK HERE to visit seller's eBAY Store
Item Location: Lawrence, Kansas, United States
Seller Posts to: Worldwide
History: 1 offer @ 13.09.2009 10:35 (EST)

Seller's Description: "This is an original creation incorporating select tiny & rare Pacific Island Maireener Shells [1] - [2] & tiny irridescent glass seedbeads for embellishment of the violet colored cotton thread treasure bag.. This Tropical [3] Treasure of a shell is amoung the smallest collected & drilled. The neck pouch, trinket or medicine bag, has been recently made by myself & is new, clean, with no odors or previous owner. No broken shells.. The soft neck strap measures 28 inches and the pouch is 2.5 inches long with an opening that expands to a 3" diam. with 2 tasseled drawstrings ....." ..... [1: Tasmania is not in the Pacific and lies between the Tasman Sea to the East & The Indian Ocean to the West] ... [2: "maireener" is the Tasmanian Aboriginal name for the kelp shells in this object and it sometimes is used to describe necklaces made from them as well] ... [3: If Tasmania is being invoked here Tasmania lies within the Temperate Zone @ 42° South]

Tasmanian Necklace Shells – Aboriginal Collectors

2009-09-10T16:23:00.015+10:00

The following shells are those used by Tasmanian Aboriginal necklace makers who are licenced by the Tasmanian Government to collect the live shellfish for necklace making.

SCHEDULE 4 – PRESCRIBED FISH FOR DEFINITION OF ABORIGINAL ACTIVITY

Regulation 22 Click here to go to the Act

Shellfish

Common or used name ... Scientific name

1. Banded or Silver Kelp shell ... Bankivia fasciata

2. Banded Periwinkle or Blue and Brown Gulls ... Nodilittorina unifasciata

3. Black Nerite or Black Crow ... Nerita atramentosa

4. Buckies, Pheasant shellor Painted Lady ... Phasianella australis

5. Cats’ teeth or Estuarine Mud Whelk shell ... Batillariella estuarina

6. Cats’ teeth or Variegated and Lined ... Rissoina Rissoina lintea

7. Cats’ teeth or Variegated ... Rissoina Rissoina variegata

8. Conniwink or Dark and YellowButtons ... Bembicium melanostomum

9. Gold-mouth Conniwink ... Bembicium auratum

10. Jewelled Top shell ... Calliostoma armillata

11. King Maireener or Choice Sea-weed shell ... Phasianotrochus eximius

12. Maireener (Pink-tipped Kelp shell) ... Phasianotrochus apicinus

13. Maireener (Rainbow Kelp shell) ... Phasianotrochus irisodontes

14. Mud Whelk shell ... Zeacumantus diemenensis

15. Oat or Dove shells ... Mitrella spp.

16. Otherside Penguins or Pygmy Margin shell ... Mesoginella pygmaeoides

17. Penguin ... Austroginella muscaria

18. Rice or Rye shell ... Truncatella scalarina

19. Striped Dog Whelk ... Nassarius pauperatus

20. Striped-mouth Conniwink or Striped Buttons ... Bembicium nanum

21. Toothies or Toosies ... Marinula xanthostoma

22. Top shell ... Clanculus dunkeri

23. Wedge shell ... Paphies cuneata

24. White Dog Whelk ... Nassarius nigellus

TASMANIAN SHELLS SURVEY CLICK HERE

Tasmanian Shell Necklaces in Paris 1855

2009-09-09T21:31:00.008+10:00

Hobart Mercury Tuesday 24 July 1855 NB: Text digitally recovered and only partly corrected
TASMANIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PARIS 1855 Nor. I.

UNLIKE: the Sydney Catalogue, which comprises the list and description of tho articles, many of which were forwarded for local exhibition only, and not for transmission to Paris, -and hence the difficulty of instituting a fair comparison,-tho Tasmanian Catalogue only embraces the contributions of products which were actually forwarded to the Exposition.... The number of Tasmanian exhibitors was 90, and the various pioduct* transmitted, according to the gioup and class arrangements,were as follows :1st Group, Class I.-Mining and Metallurgical Products. " - Cla« TI,-ivory thing relatingtothe Management of Trees, to Hunting, Shooting, and Products obtained without cultivation-Mineral.Vegetable.'Amina!, Agriculture. VI.-Machinery and Apparatus for Work- shops." X.-Chemical Manipulalotions, Dyeing and Printing, Paper, Leather, Skins, India Rubber, &c.
1st Group, Class II.-'Preparation and preservation of Alimentary Substances.
Class X11.-Hygiene,Pliai niacy,Surgery, and Medicine.
Class XVI.-Works in Metal.
Class X VII-Goldsmitli'sWork,Jewellery, &c.
Class XX.-Woollen & WorstedManufactures.
Class XXII.-Flax and Hemp'Manufactures.
Class XXIII.-Mercery, Hosiery, Carpets, Embroidery, &c. &e.
7th Group, Class XXIV.-Pioiiitcts of Industry, - Industry applied to Furniture and Decollations,
1st Group, Class XXVI.-Drawing andModelling, Letterpress and Copper plate Printing ana Photography.
Class XXVIII.-Painting, Engraving, ami Lithography.
And a few Miscellaneous Articles, consisting^ of a bundle of broad paling, contributed by Mr. John Abbott, six billiard CUPS by Sir William Denison, a churn of Huon Pine and Wattlewood by Mr. T. I, .fennings, five brushes of Colonial Manufacture by the Executive Committee, and eight necklaces of shell, prepared and worn by the Aborigines of Tasmania, as ornaments round their neck U""A e"pT6poVlí"a,tutting opportunities to wade through the Catalogue, and in a succession of notices to bring these contr¡butions under the attention of our readers, as a nieass of directing their enterprise to the successful prosecution of their duty in developing the resources of the colony,

Butterfield Shells Identified

2009-09-09T18:15:00.006+10:00

CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE

ZOOLOGY OPINION: [The necklace shells] "are definitely not maireeners ... they are mostly a combination of the mud creeper Batillariidae Batillariella estuarina, which are plentiful on mudflats and have been used by the Tasmanian Aboriginal women in necklaces. They appear to be this species by the narrow length, obvious sutures between whorls, and the fact that many seem to have broken sides on their whorls, which is a common occurrence in this species when one finds them dead on the mudflats, though this could have happened while stringing or handling over time. The species used to be called Eubittium lawleyianum and was placed in the Cerithiidae family. More or less alternate specimens in the necklace seem to be wider and have less obvious sutures. They may be Rissoidae Rissoina variegata or, more likely, juvenile Cerithiidae Cacozeliana granaria. I would be able to be more certain if I could see their apertures, but this is not the case.

There is no probably no way of knowing if this necklace was made by A. Butterfield or one of the Aboriginal women. One thing that makes me wonder if it is the former is because the contemporary makers only use live shells, and women 100 years ago possibly would not have used damaged specimens either. Of course, wear and tear since may have caused the broken whorls. There seems to be less damage with the wider species which would be consistent with C. granaria as this species has a thicker shell than B. estuarina."

L Turner – TMAG

Newspaper Advertisement –1873 Hobart

2009-09-09T16:49:00.003+10:00

From Hobart to Honolulu; the Tasmanian shell necklace trade

2009-09-08T12:02:00.002+10:00

THE ABC IN HOBART JOINS IN
Click her to link to the ABC story

CALL FOR INFORMATION – Tasmanian Shell Necklaces

2009-09-05T18:00:00.005+10:00

SNRN (Shell Necklace Research Network) is seeking information from within the Tasmanian community and further afield in regard to:

1. Any information at all in regard to 19th Century colonial and early 20th Century shell necklace making in Tasmania;

2. To complement the information available in regard to ABORIGINAL makers, the SNRN is looking for information about NON-ABORIGINAL makers in Tasmania such as:

Arthur Robert Butterfield – watchmaker, jeweller and optician at 51 Elizabeth Street, Hobart circa 1898 – click here for more information;
Mrs Mary Maria Martin (MM The Senior & nee Alexander of L’ton) and specifically information about her Factory(?) at 65 Cascade Road, Hobart – 1875 … shop(?) at 75 Collins Street Hobart from about 1906 until 1908 – her husband Thomas Daniel was reported ass being a tanner? ... M M Martin (MM The Senior) died 1924 aged 79
Frederick Charles Martin (MM’s son) who it seems ran a branch factory in Honolulu, Hawaii – dates unknown;
J J Martin (Joseph John & MM’s son) was a jeweller at 83 Collins Street Hobart and possibly in Zeehan at sometime;
'Bertie' J May, travel goods and souvenir manufacturer (jewellery & shell necklaces?) – Hobart cica 1946, 1948
Mary May Martin (MM The Younger) and Ellen Martin who in 1927 were trading as M M Martin & Co, shell manufacturers – Mary May Martin (MM The Younger) died – 13 Nov. 1933, aged 51 – Ellen Ida Martin died in August 1969 and seems Ida had continued to trade until 1948 and possibly into the 1950s;
Miss Stewart who had a jewellery shop on Brisbane St. in Launceston and it seems she traded in shell necklaces into the 1950s along with other businesses on or near Brisbane St.

3. To identifying collectors and collections of shell necklaces in Tasmania and elsewhere outside the TMAG, QVMAG and other public collections throughout Australia.

Very little is known about the people making shell necklaces in Tasmania in the 19th C and early 20th C and less is known about their necklace making. However, it seems that given the scale of production that these makers seemed to be involved in, Tasmanian shell necklaces coming to light at auctions, estate clearances and more recently on eBAY, are quite likely to have been made by a non-Aboriginal maker – 1880 – 1950s(?).

Interesting Information:

It seems that shell necklaces made in Tasmania/Hobart were marketed internationally(?) as “Hobart Necklaces” – possibly this was the basis of ‘The Martin Family’s enterprise??
The ‘maireneer’ shells (misunderstood as mariner of seaman connections) are being described as that on eBay currently and somewhat surprisingly. They have been known as that in the wider Tasmanian community for about 10 years but not so widely. However, it is a word that has never lost its currency in the Aboriginal community;
It seems that some people in Tasmania made shell necklaces on their "summer holidays at the coast on wet and windy days” in the 1950s and conceivably before that too – and maybe since?
Shell necklaces are quintessential exemplars of ‘TASMANIANA’ along with Huon Pine, Tasmanian Tigers, etc.
It was thought that Tasmaniana included “apple seed necklaces” (some even considered the possibility of Aboriginal people making them) BUT it turns out that there are NO APPLE SEED NECKLACES, rather they are IPIL SEED ( the seed of a kind of tropical acacia) necklaces and made in the Philippines – many of which were imported into Tasmania as “hippy beads” (?) in the 1970s. ... click here for more information

Any information confirming information above OR information to the contrary would be welcomed by the network.

CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE

Contact information – eMail: shellnecklaces@7250.net

Maireener Shells

2009-09-05T15:25:00.008+10:00

CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO, ENLARGE

USA SELLER'S NOTES: [She has had 10 shell necklaces] .... "all were maireener shells and I think ... to be very clear about how I came to posses so many is, I go through hundreds of pieces of jewelry every week which boils down to thousands of pieces a month so considering I have so much and it took me almost 10 years to acquire the ones I had makes them extremely scarce. I found one in a second hand store, two at local antique vendor sales, one at an auction and the rest were from various estate sales. Most of the people selling them here have no idea what they are just as I didn't. Not all the necklaces were exactly the same, some of the shells were an opalescent white color and one had a very light red or pink tint but all the rest were more of a green. The lengths were different as well, some were very long over 60" and some were much shorter. Not all were purchased by [the Tasmanian buyer], she bought 3 of them. Some of the others were sold to Australian buyers and the rest stayed here in the states."

The shells that the seller says were "light red or pink tint" may have been necklaces originating from 'The Martins' – either direct from Hobart or via Honolulu – or another maker of 'Hobart Necklaces' and dyed with aniline dye – click here – NB: More distinctly dyed examples exist in a Tasmanian collection.

Also, Aboriginal makers' use of dyes at a similar time to the Martins et al – Butterfield? – click here – cannot be discounted.

Somewhat curiously "maireener" – albeit spelt variously but not usually 'marina' – has entered the eBay lexicon to describe these shells no matter where they are in the world. Sellers are typically researching on the internet it seems and picking up Tasmanian site and site where contemporary Aboriginal makers are selling their necklaces.

Found on eBAY: Maireener Shell Necklace – UK 2

2009-09-03T22:12:00.004+10:00

This necklace poses some interesting problems. Firstly, the shells almost certainly Tasmanian but their colour is more extreme, and more 'purple' than the 'natural' maireneer shells used by Aboriginal makers. The shift in colour could be accounted for if these shells were dyed . It is thought that non-Aboriginal makers did use aniline dyes to enhance the shells' colour – 1900-1940s(?).

While the seller suggests that the ribbon here is a European(UK?) addition as a part of a restringing, there is another possibility. It seems that ribbon ties such as this had some currency in Hawaii and it possible that the Martin family used the device in their Honolulu operation.

As we keep finding, things move around the world! In any event this necklace is coming home. A Tasmanian member of 'The Network' won the eBAY auction and it will therefore be available for a range of tests. As we keep saying, watch this space!

eBAY Find – Maireener Neclace, Southern UK

2009-09-03T19:46:00.011+10:00

The seller here did "not know much more about this fine vintage necklace other than it came from an estate in south England with some other vintage jewellery ... it's stunning quality and such a special piece it came in the jewellery box as pictured with an English manufacturers retail stamp ... I have sent many mother of pearl items to Australia ... [this necklace]deserves to be housed in a museum."

The 'Art Deco' reference here may be a useful clue or may turn out to be something of a 'red herring'. In Tasmania such necklaces did have a kind of fashion currency in the late 1940-50s as "Tweed & Twinset accessories." The necklaces have had souvenir currency since G. A. Robinson's time in Tasmania – 1830s. It is also very likely that these shell necklaces were being exported to the UK between the two World Wars by the Martin family, [1] and possibly other makers as well, in relatively large numbers.

There is circumstantial evidence for the maker's description. However, it is clear that the shells came from Tasmania given that their distribution is confined to Tasmanian and Bass Strait waters.

Found via eBAY _ Maireener necklace in the USA

2009-09-02T23:08:00.005+10:00

Click on an image to enlarge

It is truly amazing that this necklace has turned up in the USA. In Tasmania they have been regarded as being rare albeit that Aboriginal women are making them again but not in large numbers.

As will be noted from earlier posts there is the possibility that necklaces like this one were made in quite large numbers in Tasmania by non-Aboriginal makers from the late 1870s. and up until the 1950s(?).

Evidence is beginning to appear that suggests that some of these necklaces were being exported and that either shells or necklaces or both were being exported to Hawaii early in 20th Century.

Watch this space for developments.

Found on eBAY: Shell Necklace – TAS

2009-09-01T10:12:00.003+10:00

CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE

The description here is interesting. Here it seems that the word "maireener" is being used to describe the type of necklace and lend 'Aboriginality' to it. 'Maireener' has most often been used in the Tasmanian Aboriginal community to describe a kind of shell rather than a kind of necklace but it has been used both ways. This necklace is typical of the necklaces produced on Tasmania's Bass Strait Islands by Aboriginal women. Interestingly it does not contain any shells described by these women as "maireeners". Watch this space for more information.

CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLAR GE

This necklace was offered for sale by the same seller but it does include "maireener" shells. Indeed, there are two kinds of maireener shells. The larger ones are known as "king maireeners" and the smaller shells are those typically referred to as "maireeners". On the balance of probability this necklace originated on the Bass Strait Islands and made by an Aboriginal maker.

Nonetheless, without clear provenance that 'Aboriginal' authenticity is unclear given that it is now known that 'the Martin family' were making large numbers of shell necklaces similar to this one albeit not necessarily with 'king maireeners'. They were doing so in Hobart between 1875 and circa1950s.This necklace is typical of necklaces produced on the Bass Strait Islands by Tasmanian Aboriginal women. The shell are called 'rice shells' and 'toothies' by the makers. All shell names are vernacular names used by the Aboriginal women who collect and thread them.

Watch this space for more information and see earlier posts for more information.

Found on eBAY: Maireener Shell Necklace – UK

2009-08-30T19:28:00.010+10:00

CLICK ON AN IMAGE TO ENLARGE

The network has started searching on the internet for references that may lead to new insights into cultural production using Tasmanian shells – and specifically to do with necklace making and 'Tasmaniana'. The necklace above turned up on eBAY and in the UK. There is increasing evidence that a great many necklaces of the kind represented in the image above [bottom] were being produced commercially in Tasmania alongside Tasmanian Aboriginal-[1]-[2]-cultural production.

What is of interest here is that the seller in the UK knew enough about the items they were selling to describe them as being; "Aboriginal" – albeit with a question mark & not Tasmanian – "vintage" and as "Mariner" – albeit not spelt 'maireener' as was possibly intended. Interestingly the word 'maireener' has gained considerable currency and arguably due to the internet and the possibility research cultural products more extensively this Tasmanian Aboriginal word used by the women making their necklaces has entered a wider lexicon.

The glass bead and maireener shell necklace is of interest in that it may have resulted from a 'restringing' in the UK or elsewhere. It is not typical of Tasmanian Aboriginal products. Also the maireener shell necklace has a clasp which also is not typical of Tasmanian Aboriginal products.

Watch this space for developments!

Shell Necklace – Totham Collection Hobart

2009-08-23T22:50:00.004+10:00

CLICK ON THE I8MAGE TO ENLARGE

George Totham lived in Hobart at Battery Point and was an enthusiastic collector of furniture, ceramics and artwork. His collecting spanned from 1920's to 70's.

His collection was eclectic and he kept a complete collection of Chinese artefacts in a designated room where he played mah-jong. George Totham was a lawyer and in this role he was involved in the dispersal of many estates in Tasmania. Indeed he is reported to have been the auctioneer at many.

Given the circumstantial evidence, this necklace on the balance of probability originated in the Furneaux Islands and made by any one of a number of Tasmanian Aboriginal women making necklaces there over a long period.

George Burrows Tasmaniana Shell Necklaces

2009-08-19T08:05:00.015+10:00

Launceston’s Brisbane Street is home to the proverbial ‘Brisbane Street Barons’. It is Launceston’s main street and the hub of the CBD. Like a number of streets in central Launceston Brisbane Street’s residential properties are circa 1890s to 1930s. It is unsurprising to find that at various locations along the street shell necklaces were once traded. A curio shop, jewellery shop and tobacconist among others figure in anecdotal reports of “shell necklaces being on sale” – particularly in the 1930s,40s & 50s.

CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO SEE THE FULL COLLECTION

George Burrows purchased a collection of shell necklaces from an auction in Launceston 1978/79. It has been suggested that the necklaces "were made by Miss Stewart" whose property was being dispersed at the estate clearance sale. 'Miss Stewart' had a jewellery shop on Brisbane St.

These necklaces are now a part of the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery's collection in Hobart. It is doubtful that 'Miss Stewart' did in fact make the necklaces. On the balance of probability, and the circumstantial evidence, she may well have been a part of the trade in shell necklaces made by Tasmanian Aboriginal women on Bass Strait's Furneaux Islands. She may have also been involved in restringing necklaces made by these women – one necklace in the Burrows Collection seems to suggest this.

The necklaces in the George Burrows shell necklace collection now held by the TMAG are typical of the necklaces that included maireener and other shells that were produced by Aboriginal women on Cape Barren and Flinders Islands in Bass Strait.

There is more to this story so watch this space for developments and if you have any information please leave a comment OR contact the network via Email: shellnecklaces@7250.net

For more information

M M Martin Shell Necklace Enterprise Hobart Tasmania

2009-08-16T10:39:00.008+10:00

CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGEThis house was The Midwoods with the Midwoods Distillery of 1822 to the lower right. Later it became the Dynnyrne Distillery owner by Robert Lathrop Murray. In the 1840s the complex was rented to the government and it became the Female Factory Nursery. In 1876 the property came into the possession of the Martins. The factory chimney to the rear is that of the Hobart Town Woollen Mill c. 1874. The house and most of the distillery were demolished in 1968. The Woollen Mills having been for many years "Flock" Mills were destroyed in the Hobart bushfires of February 1967 .

INFORMATION SOURCE: Tony Rayner, Historian Hobart - August 2009

CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE

Images courtesy of David Martin, Mary Martin's great grandson

CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE

Emily Creighton Shell Neclace Maker_Cap Barren Island

2009-08-06T20:25:00.003+10:00

On Cape Barren Island there is an example of cross-cultural referencing in the work of Emily Creighton who is not Aboriginal but Papuan. She made shell necklaces consistent in form and style to the necklaces being produced on Cap Barren Island by Aboriginal women living there. Emily made necklaces for sale for over 20 years with the tacit approval of the Aboriginal women on the Island up until 1991. The Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery was purchasing her necklaces for resale from approximately 1986 and up until the early 1990s. They were sold as souvenirs, novelties or curios by the museum and in this sense Emily was participating in the long-standing Bass Strait Islands' 'trade' in shell necklaces.

Emily Creighton was an ethnic Papuan married to a Canadian-born farmer. She and her husband moved to Cape Barren Island from Papua New Guinea in the 1980s as it offered them a haven to raise a family. She was introduced to necklace making by Aboriginal woman living on the Island – Sahara Mansel in particular and others. Through Sahara Mansel she understood that the necklaces had a currency as a 'Sweetheart' gifts – male to female and possibly female to male as well. Further, Emily understood that they were sold to provide money for the purchase of tea and sugar from the trading boats that visited the Island. She was also told of a tobacconist in Brisbane Street Launceston who traded necklaces for tobacco in the 1940s.

In essence Emily Creighton made necklaces for sale in the way the Aboriginal community has done since at least the 1930s and for an unknown time before – for pin money. Emily was a respected community member on Cape Barren Island and she established many longstanding friendships in the Aboriginal community. Indeed, in the 1990s Emily was an external student at the University of Tasmania studying Aboriginal Studies.

Emily Creighton never claimed any Aboriginality or Aboriginal value for her necklaces. However, when they were marketed this became confused, as there was a dependence upon the Aboriginality for such necklaces to gain currency in Tasmania. If there is any problem here, it rests with the institutions selling her work rather than her as the maker and also by a general lack of clarity in respect to cultural identity, and cultural property, on the part of the non-Aboriginal community in Tasmania.

The signification and authority of the maker is an issue in the context of contemporary politics and cultural authority. Emily Creighton is a recent example of a non-Aboriginal person making shell necklaces in Tasmania and a person whose work can be confused with Tasmanian Aboriginal production.

If personal signification and cultural authority is important in the way that it is in the artworld, then Emily Creighton's necklaces are problematic albeit through no fault of her own.

Tasmanian Shell Necklaces

2009-08-04T13:34:00.014+10:00

Please click on the image to enlarge

Shell Necklace: Dyed Kelp Shells:Cantharidus irisodontes
Necklace length 168 cms

IMAGE SOURCE: Bett Gallery
369 Elizabeth St. North Hobart TAS 7000
Website: www.bettgallery.com.au

NOTE: I seems that many of the Martin family's necklaces – 'Hobart Necklaces' – were dyed with aniline dyes in various colours nevertheless not all would have been. While many necklaces produced in Tasmania have ambiguous provenance there is increasing evidence to suggest that a great many may not have been made by Aboriginal makers. Indeed, given the number of years the Martin family were involved in necklace making, it is likely that a great many shell necklaces originating in Tasmania, and without clear Aboriginal provenance, may well have been made by a member of the Martin family or Bertie J May sometime between the early 1900 until the 1950s and perhaps beyond.

All would qualify as being ‘Tasmaniana’ but it is likely that a great many are not of Aboriginal origin.

The following information has been supplied by the reference library in Launceston in regard to the manufacture of shell necklaces by non Aboriginal people in Tasmania:

Arthur Robert Butterfield (born 22 Feb 1867) was a watchmaker, jeweller and optician at 51 Elizabeth Street, Hobart. His private residence was Mortimer Avenue, New Town.
Bertie J May was a travel goods and souvenir manufacturer – Source Wise’s Post Office Directory 1946, 1948
Frederick Martin and his wife Mary are listed in the Tasmanian Electoral Rolls 1914 and 1917 as shell necklace makers.
An article by E. Mawle “Notes on kelp shell Cantharidus irisodontes” in Australian Zoologist Vol 1, no. 6, 1918 p 161-162., describes the harvesting of kelp shells by non-Aboriginal people to make necklaces and hatpins in 1918, – Source Keeping Culture: Aboriginal Tasmania

The following information has also been provided by Marion Sargent, Reference Librarian, Launceston Library, LAUNCESTON, TAS. 7250 – Email: Launceston.Reference@education.tas.gov.au

M M Martin, shell necklace manufacturers:

It appears that Mrs Mary Maria Martin had the business at 75 Collins Street from about 1906 until 1908.
The Post Office Directories for 1906 and 1907 each have an advertisement for M M Martin Wholesale Shell Necklace Manufacturer, established in 1875.
They had a factory at Cascade Road, Hobart, and a branch factory in Honolulu, Hawaii, which appears to have been run by a son, Frederick Charles Martin (born 1877).
Thomas and M M Martin were previously listed as fruit growers at Cascade Road (1904-1906).
From 1909 to 1914 the business was located at 83 Collins Street.
J J Martin was a jeweller at the same address. This was Joseph John Martin.
In the 1903 Electoral Roll he was a jeweller and was living at Cascade Road with many other Martin family members.
In 1915 George Sly had a boot shop there.
It is thought that the shell business either slowed down or closed during the First World War, as there are no more entries in the Post Office Directories until 1921 to 1923. During that time the business of shell ornament manufacturers was located at 67 Cascade Road, also the private residence of the Martin family.
Mary’s husband Thomas Daniel Martin died aged 80 on 6 January 1923.
The property at Cascade Road appears to have been sold, and Mary and her daughters, Mary May (born 1881) and Ellen Ida Martin (born 1886), moved to 25 Weld Street, Hobart.
Mary Maria Martin (nee Alexander) died aged 79 on 9 July 1924.
By 1927 her two daughters, Mary May and Ellen, had moved to 12 View Street, Sandy Bay, where the business was carried on under the name of M M Martin & Co, shell manufacturers.
Mary May Martin died on 13 November 1933, aged 51.
Ellen Martin continued with the business until at least 1948, when the last Post Office Directory was published.
Frederick Charles Martin died at 12 View Street in September 1948.
Ellen is not listed in the 1950s phone books. Ellen Ida Martin died in August 1969; she had been living with her nephew Mr J Martin at Blackman’s Bay. – Source: Launceston Library, Civic Square, LAUNCESTON TAS 7250 – 04.08.09

Research

Marion Sargent: Research Librarian, Launceston Library
Ray Norman: Research Associate – CAIA Website
Dick Bett : Bett Gallery, 369 Elizabeth St. North Hobart TAS 7000 Gallery Website

LOOKING FOR BERTY MAY AND ANYONE WHO KNOWS OF HIM

2009-03-28T14:36:00.006+11:00

There have been reports of a shell necklace maker (jeweller?) Berty May working in Hobart – both South and West Hobart have been mentioned. It seems that he was working there in the 1940s & 1950s but little more than that is known about him or his work. It is thought that his work can be identified by his apparent predilection to dye his sell necklaces with aniline dyes in a range of colours. However he may not have always dyed his necklaces!

The network would be pleased to hear from anyone who knows anything at all about Berty May. A Tasmanian collector has a shell broach on a card that indicates that it was made in Tasmania by “J May”. Are Berty and J the same people? Are they related? Where did they or he work? Did he/they have any connection to A Butterfield?

We imagine that Berty, and possibly others, made his necklaces as "Hobart Necklaces."

HOBART NECKLACES

2009-03-28T13:35:00.006+11:00

CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE

The text in the photograph reads

"SOUVENIRS OF TASMANIA
DESIGNED AND MANUFACTURED
BY A. BUTTERFIELD
VISITORS SPECIALITIES
TAS PHOTO CHARMS (Gold Mounted)
SHELL SPOONS (Sil Mounted)
SHELL SUGAR TONGS (Sil Mounted)
CAPE CLASPS (Sil Mounted)
SHELL BROACHES (Gold or Sil Mounted)
SHELL LINKS (Gold or Sil Mounted)
SHELL BREAST PINS, SHELL HAT PINS
SHELL NECKLETS, TAS WOOD STICKS

JUST A LITTLE TRIFLE TO KEEP THE MEMORY GREEN"

and it indicates that Butterfield had made the shell necklace depicted.The Tasmanian State Archives has this photograph in its collection. It is dated Circa 1898 and it depicts a display of Tasmanian "souvenirs designed and made" by a Mr A. Butterfield. It is significant that the image is framed by a necklace of the kind worn by Truganini and Fanny Cochrane Smith in period photographs of them.

It may well be a photographic record of what have become known as "Hobart Necklaces" made by non-Aboriginal makers in Tasmania by A Butterfield and more than probably others as well.

A variety of souvenirs, many incorporating shells, are included in the display but the central card bearing the text makes no reference to the Tasmanian Aboriginal people or their culture. They are, however, appropriated as icons of 'Tasmanian-ness'. The photographic images of Truganini and William Lanne, is of some interest.

In claiming to have designed and manufactured the 'necklace', Butterfield was clearly exploiting the curiosity value of the shells, their connection to Tasmanian Aboriginal culture and their Tasmanian-ness. In linking this Tasmanian-ness to the Tasmanian Aboriginal people and their cultural products he was reassigning its meaning and placing it in a colonial context. The other work that Butterfield depicts in the photograph point to the curio value of the necklace and this to some extent depends upon its Tasmanian Aboriginal connections and Tasmanian colonial associations—a kind of exotic otherness.

This 1898 'Butterfield' photograph seems to suggest that for over a century shell necklaces have had currency as souvenirs of Tasmania in the European population. George Augustus Robinson's reference to the making of shell necklaces being a 'cottage industry' in 1836 suggests that they were seen by the colonists as being in some way 'valuable' quite early on. There are also reports from the 1940s of a minister of religion on Cape Barren Island buying the 'mairreeners', presumably for resale on the Tasmanian mainland or for some other purpose.

Any additional information about this photograph or non-Aboriginal shell necklace makers of any kind would be welcomed by the research network. Email any information to shellnecklaces@7250.net

NETWORKER'S NOTE: A member of the network has told us of a jewellery shop in Hobart on Liverpool St. that seems may have some connection with the name "Butterfield". A Mr. Butterfield worked there in the 1970s. We are wondering if this may have even been the bussiness related to the photograpph above.