RootsChat.Com
Old Photographs, Recognition, Handwriting Deciphering => Free Photo Restoration & Date Old Photographs => Topic started by: sherro47 on Saturday 13 October 18 10:20 BST (UK)
-
This photograph is from my Hughan family collection, and I am pretty certain that it is my great-great-great grandmother, Hannah Hughan (born Hannah Oakley) who died in Brighton, Victoria, in March of 1860, aged 58 years. Two of her daughters were holidaying in England at the time, and since Hannah had suffered from cancer for at least 12 months before her death, I thought that perhaps this photograph, taken by Davies & Co in Melbourne, was taken as a momento for her girls whilst she was very ill, perhaps near death. I have since been reading of the momenti mori photographs which were taken post-mortem, and have started to wonder if perhaps Hannah is not just ill at this sitting, but has already shuffled off the mortal coil??? Her voluminous dress makes it impossible to see the base of a stand that may have been used, as does her headwear prevent any upper head clamp from being visible. I would love to read the opinions of others re. this photo. Many thanks.
-
That is a very sad photograph whatever the circumstances.
Her face really is devoid of all expression but illness could cause that plus the relatively long exposure times in those days.
If she was already dead I wonder about her hand so carefully holding the book.
Not sure when rigor mortis sets in ,she would have to be flexible for it to be
posed so naturally.
No marks or date to help you?
Hope you solve the mystery.
Can you find out her exact date of death and when the daughters returned from the holiday.
Viktoria
-
From the story given, its hard to know if this photo is post-mortem. Someone so wracked with most cancers of the day would find it hard to sit very still. Even with one eye more open than the other, it still doesn't help as if she had brain cancer or a palsy. Holding the book isn't remarkable either as it would be quite simple for a mortician to pose that with adhesive or even just morticians wax holding it to her lap and her hand.
One of the biggest oddities other than her holding so still is her left arm. It's not hanging straight down, it's actually at an angle, so she'd have to hold that arm very still by either holding onto the dress, or just by strength. I don't see that happening if she were so ill as she looks.
The ribbon and charm around her neck seem to be anchored in place. If it were dangling, even a slight movement of hers would make it move, leaving it slightly blurry, but the focus level seems constant throughout the photo. This could be an eye glass ribbon though and it's being held in place by the glasses in a pocket on the dress that is difficult to make out in the photo.
Also, her foot actually is sticking straight out on the right side, pushing the dress forward. Not a very "lady-like" way of sitting for that era, especially for the elderly ladies.
Just my two cents.
-
Looking very closely, I see your photo was reversed. Her dress buttoned up the wrong way. So I reversed it for you.
In doing so though, I noticed the belt she wears does not go with the outfit. It looks more like leather and is buckled in the opposite direction of her dress. This leads me to think this is post-mortem as that would be most likely holding her in place, woven through the chair and put on by the mortician.
Just a couple more items of note.
Dr Dude
-
I don't think this is a Post Mortem photo, but one taken not long before she passed away. Her eyes, although sad, are focused and the pose in my opinion is quite natural and there is no evident of her being held in place.
Carol
-
I agree with Carol.
I looked at this last night and thought that the eyes still looked alive, albeit sad and sick-looking. Also,I don't think you could get a corpse to sit in that position without lots of props or being held up by another person.
Gadget
-
Thank you all so very much for your input and sharing your knowledge. I have had this photo for many years, and had never even entertained the idea of it perhaps being taken after Hannah's death until a cousin recently made a comment about it having similar traits to momento mori photographs that she had seen. The more I have analysed it, the more unsure I became, which is why I came here for some expert advice.
Hannah's daughters Jessie McCallum and Bertha Hughan left Melbourne for England in 1858 and did not return to Victoria until January 1861. Hannah, according to her death certificate, had been suffering from cancer for twelve months prior to her death on March 14, 1860. I have not located any other photographs of Hannah, which may explain how important it was to the family to take her to a photographic studio even though she was extremely ill.
I had always hesitated to positively identify the subject in this photo as being Hannah, despite other factors suggesting that it was her, because of the photographer Davies & Co not being at the address on the back of the photo until just after Hannah's death. It was only when I realised that later copies of existing photos were readily made by these studios for distribution amongst family and friends that I was able to accept that it was Hannah Oakley Hughan. The album in which this photo was found has many photos taken by Davies & Co...there are photos of Hannah's McCallum grandchildren taken at Davies & Co just after they arrived back in Australia in 1861, with the same balustrade as seen in Hannah's photograph, but different carpet. Dr Dude....thank you so much for noticing the reversal of the photo and remedying the situation-I would never have noticed in a million years! Would this reversal indicate that the photo is a copy, or would an original also be in reverse?
I thank you all for your wonderful assistance yet again-this is such a brilliant place to come when one is all researched-out!
-
Hi
A post script, for comparison ~
I've just found a site which shows photos that had previously thought to be post-mortem photos
https://dealer042.wixsite.com/post-mortem-photos/misidentified
Gadget
-
Thank you all so very much for your input and sharing your knowledge. I have had this photo for many years, and had never even entertained the idea of it perhaps being taken after Hannah's death until a cousin recently made a comment about it having similar traits to momento mori photographs that she had seen. The more I have analysed it, the more unsure I became, which is why I came here for some expert advice.
Hannah's daughters Jessie McCallum and Bertha Hughan left Melbourne for England in 1858 and did not return to Victoria until January 1861. Hannah, according to her death certificate, had been suffering from cancer for twelve months prior to her death on March 14, 1860. I have not located any other photographs of Hannah, which may explain how important it was to the family to take her to a photographic studio even though she was extremely ill.
I had always hesitated to positively identify the subject in this photo as being Hannah, despite other factors suggesting that it was her, because of the photographer Davies & Co not being at the address on the back of the photo until just after Hannah's death. It was only when I realised that later copies of existing photos were readily made by these studios for distribution amongst family and friends that I was able to accept that it was Hannah Oakley Hughan. The album in which this photo was found has many photos taken by Davies & Co...there are photos of Hannah's McCallum grandchildren taken at Davies & Co just after they arrived back in Australia in 1861, with the same balustrade as seen in Hannah's photograph, but different carpet. Dr Dude....thank you so much for noticing the reversal of the photo and remedying the situation-I would never have noticed in a million years! Would this reversal indicate that the photo is a copy, or would an original also be in reverse?
I thank you all for your wonderful assistance yet again-this is such a brilliant place to come when one is all researched-out!
Glad you're happy with the cleanup and reversal. As I've seen good 95%+ photos of the day are reversed due to way photos were taken, the type of photograph and/or the way it was processed in that era, so it's most likely not a copy. I've only seen very high end studios went through the hassle of making everything 100% perfect.
As to the post-mortem-ness of the photo, as I said I can't really say for sure. I've listed the evidence I'd say is compelling, but without a LOT more detail, it'd be hard to say for certain.
Any more help I can be, let me know.
Dr. Dude
-
I agree with Carol.
I looked at this last night and thought that the eyes still looked alive, albeit sad and sick-looking. Also,I don't think you could get a corpse to sit in that position without lots of props or being held up by another person.
Gadget
The chair-back has only a horizontal bar. Looks insufficient support as an anchor imho. I know little about this topic.
-
The chair-back has only a horizontal bar. Looks insufficient support as an anchor imho.
Exactly.
-
I am no expert in this area, but could that be a person behind her under a dark cover? Book seems to be held by a hand under the cover at one side.
Facial expression - especially eyes - appear to have a lifeless quality to me.
-
I am no expert in this area, but could that be a person behind her under a dark cover? Book seems to be held by a hand under the cover at one side.
Facial expression - especially eyes - appear to have a lifeless quality to me.
It's a table.
She was apparently not a well woman. She looks careworn.
-
I am no expert in this area, but could that be a person behind her under a dark cover? Book seems to be held by a hand under the cover at one side.
Facial expression - especially eyes - appear to have a lifeless quality to me.
It's not a cover, it's her sleeve and the ribbon from her hat is coming down behind her shoulder.
Carol