CLICK ON AN IMAGE TO ENLARGE
CLICK ON AN IMAGE TO ENLARGE
JW6710, the eBAYER here, brings some special knowledge to this collection, namely qualifications and experience as a jewellery designer. The fact that she operates from an out of the way place says something about contemporary cultural production and the unlikely places eBAY reaches.JW6710 has supplied these images of a sample of her collection not only as a demonstration of what can be found on eBAY but also the diversity of maireener shell necklaces. From all accounts these necklace come 'provenance free' and one assumes these items come to light via clearance sales, estate auctions and the like. Apparently they are kind of things that hang around in bottom drawers as memoirs of the past and far too precious to throw away – albeit that very often they are sold for very little.
NECKLACE # 6: The circumstantial evidence is that all of these shell necklaces are quintessentially Tasmaniana but their 'cultural context' is nonetheless ambiguous. All but #6 are typical of the maireener necklaces turning up that bear all the hallmarks of being 'Hobart Necklaces'. The #6 necklace is somewhat curious in that it is made using juvenile shells which in turn would mean that the effort in stringing is considerably more than 'the typical Hobart Necklaces'.
Extrapolated from this are the facts that given that commercially harvested shells were paid for by the quart they may well have been less attractive to harvest. Also, given the additional number of shells in a necklace they would be more time consuming to string. If payment for stringing was paid by the piece these necklaces may have been more expensive. Earnest Mawle's report 1918 makes no mention of the use of juvenile shells – this does not by necessity discount their use in Hobart Necklaces however.
In Launceston in the 1940s/50s maireener necklaces made with juvenile shells were available and circumstantially it seems that these necklaces were sourced in the Bass Strait Furneax Islands rather than Hobart – and say the Bertie May operation. Albeit speculative, there is a first hand reports of necklaces made with juvenile shells being purchased at Wonderland Brisbane St. Launceston 1940s and circumstantially these necklaces are most likely to be of Aboriginal production on the Furneax Islands.Thank you JW6710 for sharing a part of your collection!
2 comments:
OBSERVATIONS RELEVANT TO THIS ENTRY:
"[RE:] The tiny shells. I have seen numerous ones on eBay with the description 'tiny shells'. That can mean different things to different people. Sometimes the comment 'lightweight' will be added with 'tiny shells' … I do have a [necklace] made with 'tiny shells', they average 4 to 5 mm. long and the piece is very lightweight … It has definitely been dyed purple, and all total it is 170 cm. of shells. … It was not, however, listed as Tasmanian or Aboriginal … speculating about a couple of reasons why the tiny (juvenile) shells might have been made into necklaces, even though it takes so many more shells. Possibly, the tiny shells were easier to clean and process. Also, they would have to be easier to make holes in than the larger shells which would be thicker. I have made holes in shells to string them using a diamond-tip metal awl and the thicker the shell is, the more careful I must be to prevent breakage.
[RE:] The second piece in the pictures is real close to one of the other necklaces I have- it looks like the shells in that one are about 6 to 8 mm, and the colors look natural, not even slightly (or subtly) dyed. Nice.
[RE:] The third [piece] with the largest shells is most intriguing. I saw one recently on eBay (maybe this same one) … There is something about this particular necklace that doesn't fit with most of the others I've seen on eBay. It would really be interesting to know where this came from. For one, the shells are definitely P. apicinus (pink-tip kelp shells), and they are much larger than in the 'average' necklace. If I get it right, the large shell in one of the pix is 1.9 cm- that is nearly the maximum size for P. apicinus. The other thing is, the shells have not been processed the same as others- you can tell because the stripping is 'incomplete'. There are large areas of the outer coating left remaining on some of the shells. Also, the shells leave me with the impression they are not completely cleaned on the inside, either that, or they have become dirty from being worn next to the skin. … but, it just doesn't look like something that would end up in a souvenir shop.
Have been doing some checking on distribution in Tasmania of the maireener shell species. There is a web site by Simon Grove, www.molluscsoftasmania.net and for whatever reason, the species P. apicinus does not have much distribution info on it because it is "insufficiently documented". The only place marked on the entire map of Tasmania is E. of Devonport. Strange!!! I'm checking around at pictures of the shells on the internet- some people's identifications are more reliable than others." ... THANK YOU KJC
Reading the Mawle Report more carefully, the small shells in IMAGES # 1 & 6 are likely to be those Mawle reports as being "gem shells". If it is the case this suggests that 'gem shells' and necklaces made from them, may well have attracted a higher price both for their collection and for the necklaces.
This being so, it would discount to some extent the use of these as being a more reliable indicator of these necklaces being Aboriginal production.
However, necklaces with Launceston cum Furneaux Is. provenance, and strung with these so-called 'gem shells' would, circumstantially, be more likely to be of Furneaux Is. and Aboriginal cultural production.
Post a Comment