Photos

Comments

• 

  Kathleen McCabe-Elsey August 19, 2011 at 12:45am

  This is awesome!
• 

  Linda Pastorino August 19, 2011 at 5:55am

  So much of this jewelry now is gaining popularity with people collecting Pacific material which is becoming more expensive and hard to find.  This was  purchased in  Paris.
• 

  Joost Daalder August 23, 2011 at 8:15am

  A few corrective comments are needed here, Linda ...: This is a whale tooth (nothing to do with walrus) on sennit (coconut fibre) string. It is a ceremonial presentation object (a so-called "tabua"), not a necklace. Yes, it is from Fiji (which consists of more than one island!), but it is 19th c, not 18th c. The whale tooth is that of the sperm whale, and it is probably pigmented with turmeric mixed with coconut oil (see Rod Ewins, *Fijian Artefacts*). This tooth has a fine "amber" tone, which was (and remains) much prized. The object is fairly common, and it continues to be transacted with some regularity, though it is certainly collectible. See *Ethnic Jewellery and Adornment*, p. 159 (photo + caption), and p. 134 (elaborate description).
• 

  Linda Pastorino August 23, 2011 at 2:51pm

  I have to look up the piece in my book but I seem to remember when I got it in Europe it had documents with it saying when it was purchased and by whom. I think it was even with the original documents and dated around the turn of the 18th ot 19th centuries and also had some carving on the reverse with a date. I purchased a whole group of items at that time that came from the same family. 
• 

  Joost Daalder August 23, 2011 at 3:11pm

  The problem with an 18th c date is that this piece is made of a whale tooth. I don't think that I have ever seen one dated in any reliable source as far back as 18th c, and anyone claiming that date for it would really need to provide some very convincing evidence. Alas, anyone could - and some would - at a later date carve an early date on a piece. It is not, in theory, impossible for it to be 18th c, but in practice extremely unlikely. In other words, I am not bringing a subjective judgement to bear: there is general evidence of a factual nature against that assumption about the date. It is simply a matter of hardly any availability of whale teeth before around 1820 in Fiji, and the number increases after around that date.  Additionally, the depth of patina on yours is not as deep as several others we have seen, both in real life and illustrated, and the piece is most probably not earlier than 1850 or later. The colour is good, but lacking in depth such as the piece would have acquired from more handling. Those known to have been collected between 1820 and 1850 have considerably more patina than this. And the colour, though beautiful, is far less intense than on the earlier pieces, which tend to be a DEEP "amber" or "walnut".
• 

  Linda Pastorino August 23, 2011 at 3:21pm

  yes I have seen darker examples  no doubt but when this was purchased it came with papers indicating the trip it was purchasaed  on and those papers were also early. I gave the papers to the client. I  still have a  few pieces left of the other items that were collected same time so I can look up whom  they belonged to as they had  collection tags on them. They either came  out of a museum or estate in Europe I don't remember it was a long while back that I had this however having papers also doesn't mean it was correct either.   It also could be that it was collected shortly after it was made brought to Europe and then the patina would not have formed once in a collection  without use. If it's not touched much after it's collected and put away in  some cabinet as they often were, then it might not have had time to mature. And yes these are not so un common now as they seem to have started coming out more so in the past few years. We don't see them much here in the states but in Europe one can find them.
• 

  Joost Daalder August 23, 2011 at 3:28pm

  Even if it was bought shortly after it was made and then put in a European cabinet the colour would still be curiously light, but I concede that that is, even so, a possibility. I feel quite confident, however, that whatever documentation accompanied it, it would almost certainly not have been made before about 1820, and was more likely made quite a bit later. As for availability, they have consistently been around since we grew seriously interested around 1980, and many were sold at auction etc before. It is just not a rare article, and many Europeans - particularly the British - obviously brought them home as souvenirs in considerable numbers. They ARE however actual tribal artefacts: given as a present, ceremonially.