Six Exhibits With Ambiguous Authenticity

What is meant by "ambiguous authenticity" here? Given the information that is currently coming to the attention of the network of investigators looking at shell necklace making in Tasmania it is becoming increasingly clear that there has been at least two classes of shell necklace making going on in Tasmania:

• Firstly, there is the cultural production of the Tasmanian Aboriginal people;
• Secondly, there is the commercial mass production of shell necklaces for the retail jewellery market (domestic & export) and the souvenir market; and perhaps

• Thirdly, the seaside holiday pass-time shell necklaces made by various Tasmanian 'settler' families – anecdotally 1950s and quite possibly much earlier but seemingly relatively insignificant by number ... For those who recall shell necklace making from their childhood seaside summer holidays they are ambivalent about the extent to which this may have been some kind of mimic of an Aboriginal precedent – Lindsay Broughton Tim Smith et al ... all of which used 'kelp shells' of various species – or at least predominantly so.

Given this the "Aboriginal authenticity" can no longer be considered 'a given'.

For example, Sydney's Powerhouse Museum has a necklace in its collection that might well be the best reference here – Click here to go to source – see image below. 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. CLICK FOR MORE INFORMATION ON THIS NECKLACE'S PROVENANCE
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 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 – Grace Cochrane [1] • [2] • [3] – 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 a natural resource", again this is consistent with the Mawle Report connection.

The Possibly Ambiguous Necklaces in "Strings Across Time" exhibit – The diagram below charts the position of the six necklaces currently under investigation. What these necklace have in common is:

• Each one is dated as 20th Century with one being described as early 20th century on the exhibit labeling;
• Each is made using 'maireener' shells found in Tasmania albeit sometimes of a different species/subspecies;
• Each is a long endless threading of the shells.

There are seven other shell necklaces in the exhibit dated as 20th Century, and without 'named makers', but it is highly unlikely that they are a part of Tasmania's mass produced and commercial shell necklace trade – late 19th – 20th Century.

Nonetheless, the Aboriginal women who are circumstantially the most likely makers of these necklaces were living on the Furneaux Group of islands to the north east of the Tasmanian mainland. Oral histories and anecdotal references suggest that in Launceston similar necklaces were being sold in various shops on or near Brisbane Street in the 1940s & 1950s and known to have been made "on the Islands" by Aboriginal women. This was so albeit that the racist 'Truganini myth' that she was "last true Tasmanian Aboriginal" was deeply etched into Tasmania's imagined history of the time.

Click Here to Go To The Mawle Report

'maireener' Shells' Scientific Information
Taxonomic information Family (-subfamily): Trochidae - Trochinae; Genus: Phasianotrochus Fischer, 1885; Taxonomic validity: acceptable;
• Phasianotrochus irisodontes (Quoy & Gaimard, 1834) “rainbow kelp-shell” ... Taxonomic validity: acceptable Synonym(s): irisodontes Quoy & Gaimard, 1834 virgata Menke, 1843 iriodon Philippi, 1845 laetus Philippi, 1850 schrayeri Philippi, 1850 virgulatus Philippi, 1850 minor Philippi, 1851 vulgaris A. Adams, 1853 nitidulus Philippi, 1855. Compare with: Cantharidella tiberiana, Phasianotrochus bellulus , Phasianotrochus rutilis
• Phasianotrochus bellulus (Dunker, 1845) “elegant kelp-shell” ... Description and identification Typical adult shell-length: 18 mm; Compare with: Phasianotrochus apicinus, Phasianotrochus eximius [P.eximius 2], Phasianotrochus irisodontes .

Habitat and distribution: Presence in Tasmanian waters: confirmed; Introduced?: no; Extinct?: no; Occurrence on Tasmanian beaches?: occasional, Substrate: among macroalgae, Depth-range: in the shallow subtidal ... Australian range: TAS, VIC and SA – Global range: southeastern Australia

NB: The 1905 shell necklace in the Powerhouse Museum's collection is described as 'Cantharidus badius' – Powerhouse E3623 – click here

• Clarification of the context for the different taxonomic naming is being sought.
• Accession information in respect to the six necklaces identified here as potentially having an element of ambiguity in their authentication is also being sough.

Ray Norman 2009