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.

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

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 IN TASMANIA: Bertie May Necklaces With Provenance

This necklace comes with a clear provenance plus first hand information and observations. The owner received it as a gift from Bertie May in Hobart in the 1950s. As a young girl she was enlisted to help her grandmother string such necklaces. Her grandmother lived outside Hobart and the owner reports that:

• Her grandmother strung rainbow kelp shell necklaces for Bertie May to supplement the family's income;

• Bertie May regularly supplied her grandmother with relatively large quantities of shells in plastic bags;

• Approximately every two weeks her grandmother would deliver her latest batch of strung necklaces to an address in Macquarie St. Hobart and on school holidays she would go with her to his house/warehouse – it seems that he only sold his products wholesale;

• She recalls that her grandmother was paid one shilling and sixpence for short necklaces and two shillings and sixpence for long necklaces.

This necklace comes from another source in Tasmania and with a clear provenance plus first hand information and observations. The owner received it as a gift from an Uncle by marriage who was a farmer on the Tasman Peninsular in the 1940s-1950s and who collected shells for Bertie May to supplement his farm income.

As a young woman she moved to 'The Peninsular' to farm with her husband and Uncle. Her Uncle gave her this necklace along with others he acquired from Bertie May and made with shells he had harvested for him. The Uncle's shell harvesting technique is a matter of family history and the story goes that he:

• Collected 'Rainbow Kelp' shells (maireener shells) – Phasianotrochus irisodontes – IMAGE BACK LINK – for his Hobart based Tasmanian souvenir manufacturing and wholesaling enterprise.
  
• Had a flat bottomed boat from which he cut kelp from the kelp beds relatively close to the shore;
• Lay the kelp out on the beach in the sun on a canvas(?) to dry thus collecting the shells that dropped from the weed as they died;
• Gathered the shells together and stored where the blowflies were allowed to lay their eggs on the decaying fish;
• Allowed the blowfly's maggots to eat out the shellfish thus 'cleaning' them ready for further treatment;
• Was paid ten shillings a quart (0.95 Litres) of shells, circa 1947, by Bertie May – a 1918 report by Earnest Mawle in the "The Australian Zoologist" – Vol 1 Part 6 Nov. 1918 – on this industry indicated that "a collector can obtain nine quarts of shells per day."
  

CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE

IMAGE & DATA LINK: Shells Used in Contemporary Aboriginal necklace Making

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

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 On The Internet – Tasmanian Authenticity

Again the question of AUTHENTICITY arises in regard to these necklaces. Clearly the shells are:

• maireener, Rainbow Kelp, Phasianotrochus irisodontes, shells – one may not be but it is obscured by other shells;
• the shells are relatively mature shells;
• on the balance of probably they were collected in Tasmanian waters;
• natural shells found in Tasmanian waters – BUT clearly this necklace has been dyed;
• used by Aboriginal necklace makers in Tasmania – BUT this necklace may well not be authentically Aboriginal, see the clasp ;
• typical of the kind of necklace that MAY have also been known a 'Hobart 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 him most likely.
  

For notes on Aboriginal shell necklace making in Tasmania – CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE TO CHECK OUT WORTHpoint & WORTHopedia

LOOKING FOR BERTY MAY AND ANYONE WHO KNOWS OF HIM

There have been reports of a shell necklace maker (jeweller?) Berty May working in Hobart – both South and West Hobart have been mentioned. It seems that he was working there in the 1940s & 1950s but little more than that is known about him or his work. It is thought that his work can be identified by his apparent predilection to dye his sell necklaces with aniline dyes in a range of colours. However he may not have always dyed his necklaces!

The network would be pleased to hear from anyone who knows anything at all about Berty May. A Tasmanian collector has a shell broach on a card that indicates that it was made in Tasmania by “J May”. Are Berty and J the same people? Are they related? Where did they or he work? Did he/they have any connection to A Butterfield?

We imagine that Berty, and possibly others, made his necklaces as "Hobart Necklaces."