THE SHELL NECKLACE CASE: The Retrial

WARD RETRIED AND CONVICTED
AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL LIBRARY LINK

The Mercury (Hobart) Wednesday 20 May 1908

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

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

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

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

____
ADVERTISEMENT HOBART MERCURY
Monday 2 February 1903

UNDER ROYAL PATRONAGE
J. PAGET.
(Established 1860)

73 ELIZABETH-STREET, HOBART.

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

____

ADVERTISEMENT HOBART MERCURY
Wednesday 2 September 1903

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

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

A SHIFT IN UNDERSTANDING

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

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

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

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

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

Shell Necklaces – Theft & Cultural Appropriation

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

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

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

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

Provenance & Authenticity

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

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

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

CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE

CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE

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

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

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

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

CLICK HERE FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Found on eBAY_ Santa Cruz USA

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

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

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

Tasmanian Aboriginal Shell Necklaces Win Icon Status inTasmania

CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE

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

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

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

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

NEWS LINKS

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