Free Updates
Navigation
Categories
| July, 2008 (1) |
| June, 2008 (5) |
| May, 2008 (5) |
| April, 2008 (5) |
| March, 2008 (4) |
| February, 2008 (4) |
| January, 2008 (5) |
| December, 2007 (4) |
| November, 2007 (4) |
| October, 2007 (6) |
| September, 2007 (4) |
| August, 2007 (4) |
| July, 2007 (5) |
| June, 2007 (4) |
| May, 2007 (3) |
| April, 2007 (2) |
| March, 2007 (1) |
Search
Archives
| | Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat | | 29 | 30 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 1 | 2 | | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
by Maureen A. Taylor
More Links
|
 Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Belieu Babies
Posted by Maureen
Within moments of posting last week's column on the pictures of Catherine Denison Belieu and her babies, I received an e-mail from Midge Frazel, Denison family historian. Turns out there's nothing simple about those Belieu kids. Did Catherine have 11, 12 or 13 children? It's still being debated. I wrote that the family traveled to Oregon by boat, but another family historian commented that the family could have traveled overland. She's right, but this family took the water route. You can read Midge's note about how the family got to Oregon by clicking Comments below last week's piece. So which babies are depicted in these portraits? Catherine's clothing is a simple dress with a small collar accented by a pin. This helps date the picture to a short time frame, the mid-1860s to at least 1869. After 1869, women's collars changed. Of course there's no guarantee Catherine stopped wearing her older clothing into the early 1870s. Catherine and her husband, John Asbury Belieu, had several children in the late 1860s and early 1870s. - Sarah Naomi Alice, born Dec. 4, 1864; died June 13, 1867.
- Jesse Leander, born Oct. 11, 1866.
- M. Elizabeth Evalin, born Feb. 3, 1869. This Eva is supposed to be Carole Hayden's great-grandmother, but some genealogists claim this child died in 1872. There's a mistake in here somewhere.
- James Asbury Elmer, born Jan. 2, 1871
It's likely the two babies in the photos are two of these children, but it's difficult to assign names. I think that at least one of them is Sarah, who died in 1867. It was a common practice to pose for a picture with a first child. The two images show different children. I've come to that conclusion by comparing the shapes of their heads—they're slightly different. Both children wear dresses, but you can't jump to the conclusion they're girls. The mother could be reusing a garment from her first baby. Regardless of who's who, these two images are treasures for the Denison/Belieu family. Now here's a challenge to other descendants. Do you own pictures of Catherine with her other children? Send them in and let's really try to settle the question of which baby is which.
1860s photos | children | women
4/15/2008 9:09:13 AM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00) 
|
|
Monday, April 07, 2008
Family Travels and Family Photos
Posted by Maureen
Every family has significant events documented in photographs. For immigrant families, that usually meant taking a group picture before a loved one left home. The immigrant also often sent pictures home to show he'd arrived in one piece and was happy. In some families, photographs don't actually document the travels, they become the icon for the retelling of a family story. Carole Hayden owns two images of women with a baby. She found them in a box of newspaper clippings saved by her great-great-grandmother, Catherine Lavinia Denison (born in 1848). When Catherine was a mere 2 years old, her parents took her to Oregon. In those days, that meant boarding a ship and sailing around the tip of South America. Approximately 6,000 other people also made that trip. If you've got an ancestor who decided to settle in Oregon in 1850, you can check his or her name against this online list of pioneers. It's not comprehensive and the Denison family doesn't appear there, but you might get lucky. Now Catherine's descendant wants to know the significance of these two tintype images. Do they show the same woman?   Definitely! These images depict the same mother, but is the baby the same? That depends how many children Catherine Denison had with her husband Asbury Belieu. They married in 1863, and judging from her clothing, these two pictures were taken in the year or two after their marriage. Family history research would provide information on when their children were born and the sex of the babies. The babies in both images appear to be female. I need to do a little more research before I can answer the rest of Carole's questions. Back next week with more! By the way, thank you to everyone who added comments about last week's column. You'll have to look at the column and the comments to see my response :)
1860s photos | cased images | children | women
4/7/2008 6:22:32 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)
|
|
Friday, October 26, 2007
Hunting for Clues Part Two
Posted by Maureen
For genealogists, it's easy to underestimate the power we yield. If you need proof, think about this: The recent Wall Street Journal (WSJ) article on The Photo Detective was the number one article read online at the WSJ for a week! This means thousands if not millions of people are interested in their family photographs. That's great news! A couple of folks who read that piece commented on the type of gun depicted in the cover photo. Last year I wrote a column, Hunting for Clues, about this picture of a hunter. Now new evidence has surfaced.  There's a lot of discussion about what type of gun appears in the picture and the date for the image. Faced with the new facts, I could've been off by a few years. The man wears his old clothes for a soujourn into the wilds of New Jersey. Instead of just saying his photo is from the late 1860s, I'm stretching the time frame to include the early 1870s. It doesn't change my analysis, but the additional details add depth to this image. Here's what turned up: I spoke with LeRoy Merz of Merz Antique Firearms about the gun in the photo. While my original expert was right about it not being a Civil War piece, it's not a Winchester 66, either. Merz set me straight. It appears to be a double-barrel shotgun, and the shells around the man's waist are 10-gauge.  Merz thinks this man holds a European model probably imported from England in the early 1870s. It was first introduced there in the late 1860s. In England, these shotguns were used for market hunting of water fowl. (Notice the game bag at the man's side.) It appears Majorie Osterhout's relative liked to go bird-hunting, probably for duck or geese, with his trusty four-legged friend. Though the dog (hard to see here) isn't a traditional breed for retrieving game, it could've been trained for the task.  Merz's opinion is just one of several. All are in agreement the gun isn't a Winchester 66, but there's still lots of talk about the actual model and the gauge of the shells. Next week, I'll take a look at another earlier column and tell you more of the fascinating story behind a reader's family photo.
1860s photos | 1870s photos | men | props in photos
10/26/2007 2:16:03 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)
|
|
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Could this happen to your family history treasures?
Posted by Maureen
Before diving into this week’s identification, I have a question for you: Have you specified in your will who’ll receive your heritage photos after you’re no longer here? If not, your relatives could find themselves in a battle. Carolanne, the owner of this week’s photo, has spent 17 years trying to gain ownership of her great-aunt’s pictures and family history materials. When Addie Mattilda Weed died in 1990 at age 106, the tenants in her house gave her manuscripts to a university and kept her photos. Carolanne, Addie’s closest living relative, finally got the photos, but she’s still battling the university—which currently expects her to pay even to copy the papers. So, make sure you’ve planned for the future of your genealogy collection. On to Carolanne’s question: Who are these people? She hopes they’re Addie’s mother, Laura Gilman (1844-1926), and father, James Wyatt Weed (1839-1888).   I think Carolanne’s right. Addie lived her whole life in one house—birth to death. Since these photos were in that house among her belongings, they’re likely her close relatives. Also, this couple is the right age to be her parents. That’s easy, but as usual, there are other questions: When were these images created, and what format are they? Both are photographs enhanced with charcoal. Photographers generally took pictures first, then enlarged and enhanced them—turning an ordinary cabinet-style picture into a piece of art. I happen own a similar-style image in a large gilt frame. The frames for these images are missing, and if there were smaller photos, those are unfortunately lost as well. From about 1869 to 1875 women wore high, ruffled collars, long curls and ties at the neckline just as in this portrait. Notice her neck ribbon. Since Gilman and Weed married in 1873, it’s possible this is an engagement or wedding portrait. It’s much more difficult to date the picture of her husband, due to the sparse costume details in his picture. If his picture was done at the same time as Addie’s, he’d be 34 years old. His beard resembles the untrimmed facial hair men wore in the mid-1870s. Unlike his wife’s unwrinkled face, he has lines around his eyes, suggesting hard work that required he squint into the sun. According to the 1880 US census, James Weed worked in a mill, but I imagine he also spent time outdoors in his native Maine. Caroleann sent a third family photo. I’ll tackle that next week, with a few more things to say about the three images. ‘Til then…
1860s photos | 1870s photos | enhanced images | men | women
10/10/2007 2:50:43 PM (Eastern Daylight Time, UTC-04:00)
|
|
|