CLICK ON THE IMAGE FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THIS NECKLACE 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:
- 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;
- Shell necklaces of the kind illustrated here were being produced commercially, and in large numbers, by non-Aboriginal makers;
- 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;
- 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.
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.
