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

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

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.

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 ]

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

Found on eBAY: Maireener Shell Necklace – UK

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

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

1. maireener, Rainbow Kelp, Phasianotrochus irisodontes, shells;
2. relatively mature shells – albeit that due to the vagaries of photographic documentation it is not possible absolutely specific here;
3. more likely to have been collected (commercially harvested?) in Tasmanian waters than elsewhere;
4. natural shells found in Tasmanian waters – almost certainly this necklace has not been dyed;
5. 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;
6. 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;
7. 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

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.

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

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(?).

Found Via eBAY: Maireener Shell Necklace – USA

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

HOBART NECKLACES

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.