Found on eBAY_ Maireener shell necklace - Australia, Melbourne

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

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

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

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

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.

eBAY Find – Mairneener Neclace(?) Melb/Australia

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

From what can be gleaned from the seller's description and the images this necklaces must be regarded as one with ambiguous authenticity. There is nothing sinister in this rather the seller is clearly relying upon information he regarded as reliable – possibly at the time of purchase 1984.

At that time, there is anecdotal evidence that such necklaces were assumed to have been made Tasmanian Aboriginal people – albeit in Tasmania the myth that Truganini was the last of the Tasmanian Aborigines prevailed. In the absence of critical inquiry in the 1980s – Tasmania/Australia – relevant to this cultural material, that may well have seemed a reasonable assumption to make. In the light of more recent information the reliability of information available in the 1980s needs to be questioned and further provenance sought. Sadly, that will not always be available but when it is, typically there are compelling reasons to endorse it.

If this necklace is indeed circa 1950, and there seems little reason to doubt that, it may have been made on the Furneaux Islands by an Aboriginal maker OR in Hobart by an outworker employed by Bertie May or a like dealer in Tasmanian souvenirs. This necklace is consistent with being either.

THE DILEMMA: If this necklace's value depends upon its Aboriginal authenticity its authenticity needs to be established. If that is not possible – as it seems it may not be for a variety reason – there may be a problem if the circumstantial evidence is ambiguous – here it seems to be. The collector here seems to have defaulted to 'the wisdom of the time (1984)' and arguably with relatively good reason.

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

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

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

The are two distinct activities going on – one Aboriginal and the other non-Aboriginal – and the relationship between the two is yet to be fully explored. Nonetheless, the ways these necklaces are marketed in the Aboriginal art and antique markets is an issue. It is clear that the Aboriginal status adds value to these necklaces. This has been recently reinforced in Tasmania by the National Trust nominating "the shell necklaces made by Tasmanian Aboriginal women" as Cultural Heritage Icons. Indeed this can be taken as wider community acknowledgement that a necklace's Aboriginal status does in fact add value to it.

Auction Ended

Dec 14, 2009 – 09:51:38 AEDST

8 bids – Winning bid AU $124.00