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.
