CLICK ON THE IMAGES TO ENLARGE
This necklace opens up some interesting areas of speculation. If it turns out that shells are identifiable as Tasmanian it may be linked to the necklace depicted in the 'Butterfield Photograph' [ link 1 ] • [ link 2 ] and if it is it may tell us something more about 'Hobart Necklaces' in Tasmania. If the shells can be identified as coming from the UK as implied by the seller here it may tell us something about the trade Hobart Necklaces were a part of.
Watch this space!
Alerted by: PD-SB.US
2 comments:
Regarding the blue-gray necklace in Britain currently on Ebay, those shells are very difficult to identify. General shape of the shells tell me they are Batillaria or Bittium, a very large group within the Cerithiidae. They could have been collected locally, or they could be from Japan. It's very hard to say. I do know that for a time here, collector pieces, such as ceramic, etc. came from Japan, even occupied Japan (and is labeled as such). Somehow, the seller believes the piece dates around 1910. Is the Butterfield picture clear enough to determine if the shells are shiny, smooth, or rough? That may give a clue. Karen Couch USA
Hooray for photos and for an easy enquiry! … The shells are the mud whelk Batillariidae, Batilariella estuarina, formerly Eubittium lawleyanum, (my computer won’t do italics). It is extremely common on mudflats all through the south eastern part of Australia, and would be plentiful on beaches on Cape Barren Island and anywhere around the Furneaux. However, there is no way of knowing if it is a genuine Aboriginal necklace or not. The pink cotton could be either way too. The colour is natural as the shells vary enormously in shades, depending on the mud, exposure to sunlight or just already dead … It’s a nice necklace
Post a Comment