Found on eBAY: Maireener Shells – Australia WA

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

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

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

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

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

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

Found on eBAY: Shell Necklace – UK

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

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

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

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

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

THE DILEMMA: Cultural Heritage Icon or Tasmaniana

CLICK ON THE IMAGE FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THIS NECKLACE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Found on eBAY: Maireener Shell Necklace – Melbourne/AUS

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

The granting of this status seems to do two things:

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

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

Found on eBAY_ Santa Cruz USA

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

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

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

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

Click on an image to enlarge it

Click on an image to enlarge it

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

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

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

BACK LINK TO AN EARLIER POST

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

NOT MAIREENERS – Leis From Hawaii

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

eBAY Find – Maireener Necklace(?) USA

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.

Butterfield Shells Identified

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

Maireener Shells

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.