Child 1 Unknown
Date & Place:
at R S Gavin Album in Meridian, Mississippi USA
Advertisement
Advertisement
Child 1 Unknown
Updated Mar 10, 2025
Loading...one moment please
Debora Reese
88 favorites
08/13/2009
Comments
via Facebook
Interesting, in that era with her hair that short she may have been through a serious illness, maybe within the previous 6 months? Not sure how long it would take for hair to grow to that length but they used to cut hair off with high fevers.
via Facebook
hair might be pulled back in pony tail? just a thought
via Facebook
If you look at the hair above the ears, that looks like a short cut. I have hair about that length and you can tell the cut lines. Vitamin deficiencies also cause hair loss, the four Russian grand duchesses during their captivity (1916) lost their hair.
via Facebook
Thank you. So, if it had to be cut maybe 2 months? 3 at the outside maybe.
Richard Ziers
1 follower 38 favorites
07/04/2024
I believe human hair naturally grows at the rate of approximately one-fourth of an inch per-month.
via Facebook
Off topic:
Quitman, Mississippi?
Doing my husband's family tree, his 2nd Gr Grandpa's name was Quitman C Wiginton, and they lived in Mississippi before migrating to Texas. I've always wondered the origin of the Quitman name. Now me thinks I must look up the origins of Quitman, Mississippi!
Quitman, Mississippi?
Doing my husband's family tree, his 2nd Gr Grandpa's name was Quitman C Wiginton, and they lived in Mississippi before migrating to Texas. I've always wondered the origin of the Quitman name. Now me thinks I must look up the origins of Quitman, Mississippi!
via Facebook
Transgender and trasvestite ideas didn't exist back then.
via Facebook
Oh i bet it did but they kept it in the closet.......Mental illness , my opinion. I could tell she was a she tho
via Facebook
yes they actually did, people just didn't freak out like they do now, and it is not mental illness any more than the color of your eyes
via Facebook
Back then they did consider it mental illness,.
via Facebook
Back then, boys and girls were dressed alike until a certain age. Little boys wore frilly dresses and had long hair until about five years old.
via Facebook
The name written on the bottom left is Ina P Rapier.
via Facebook
One reason people didn't freak out is sex was a private act, it wasn't on the big screen or in TV shows, it wasn't happening in public and it wasn't broadcast by the news media. People weren't proclaiming loudly I'm heterosexual or I'm gay.
via Facebook
Looking closely at this I believe this is a boy and not a girl........
via Facebook
I was wondering about that, too. Boys did wear dresses until a certain age back then. But, I don't think that their ears would have been pierced, and, it looks like the child in the photo is wearing earrings.
Nevair Topalian
4 favorites
08/18/2015
Look at her legs people that is a little girl and Jesus I think people weren't as whacked as our time. And In the Victorian era the dresses u elude to were for toddlers because it was easier to change the kiddos diapers.
via Facebook
Boys only wore dresses until they were 2 or 3 years of age. They did not wear them this late in age. This person is wearing earrings and their jacket is very feminine looking with a lacy border. This is either a girl that had to have her hair cut off due to an illness or lice or her parents were poor and sold her hair for money or maybe the mother had so many sons she wanted to dress one of them up just once to see what it would be like to have a girl. Believe it or not people do that.
via Facebook
I have always heard that boys wore dresses until about five or six -- sometimes a bit later. But, considering the earrings, I do think that this is a girl.
via Facebook
The cut of the boot heel looks feminine to me too. Mens and boys boots were more squared off heels
via Facebook
I know her bangs are short but her hair could be pulled to the back.Is there a hint of a bow in the back behind her hand. Boys didn't wear earrings then. Also it looks like she has on a necklace. Girl shoes.I would just take it at face value. A pretty young girl.
via Facebook
I'm confused... Why does her hair mean anything? It's just hair.
via Facebook
Because little girls did not have short hair unless they had been very ill (high fever) or suffered from a vitamin deficiency. So, yes, hair can tell us a lot about the era/time.
via Facebook
She is very still for being on a swing. Do you see her left hand(right to us). It looks limp. Though the other hand looks like it is grasped around the rope. I have found several photos in my family photo box(most unidentified) that were of deceased children.
Like · 3 mins
Like · 3 mins
via Facebook
I had thought of that, the swing is easy, it is probably a prop in a photographer's place, but I thought her eyes looked too "there" to be deceased. Too aware, not empty, hard to explain.
via Facebook
exactly. Plus her feet look limp. The hand that is up on the rope could be wired or tied there, hence her head resting against the hand.
via Facebook
I have heard of photographers "drawing" the pupils of the eyes on the deceased to make them appear aware.
Richard Ziers
1 follower 38 favorites
12/02/2015
The photo appears like it was taken in the 1880s.
Richard Ziers
1 follower 38 favorites
12/02/2015
This is the second photo of a child that I've run across in the past twenty-four hours on Ancient Faces that viewers have commented they thought was of a post-mortem child. Really, people; do you genuinely believe that a parent or photographer's studio would morally permit such a thing as posing deceased children - and pretending that they were still alive - for photographic purposes? Regarding viewer Elsa Cumming's comment (above) that the child is "very still", there is a perfectly sensible reason for this, and not because she is deceased. In the early days of photography the exposure time was sometimes several seconds. Therefore, photographic subjects were required to remain perfectly still in order to guarantee a clear, focused image. If the subject were to move his / her image would appear as a moving blur. Also, if this child were deceased it would be awfully difficult to maintain her position on such a precarious location as a swing without her toppling off. I give a hearty thanks to the extreme majority of you who, like me saw this little girl as how she appears; alert, adorable, and very much "alive."
Sandra Edwards
1 follower 4 favorites
11/25/2019
My ex husband was born and raised in Quitman MS,, I went there only ones in all the year we were married and it's very small, maybe he knows something about where the photo came from.
Richard Ziers
1 follower 38 favorites
07/04/2024
Both of this child’s hands appear to be severely chapped, particularly her right hand. Maybe she was recovering from some form of illness, or a burn injury.
via Facebook
Don't intend this to be mean but sometimes they would cut their hair off if they had gotten lice.
via Facebook
You aren't being mean, but it is a proven fact that little boys had to wear dresses in those days, they were black! I screwed up on this one, it is a girl! Ppl were not allowed to smile either if a photographer was taking their pictures!
via Facebook
Usually just until around 2 years of age tho.... The they wore short pants
via Facebook
I suppose that if I had to make and sew all my kids' clothing from scratch, I'd make them wear everything until it fell apart.
via Facebook
It's not that they "weren't allowed to smile" it's that pictures took so long to take back in those days that they didn't want to hold a smile for that long. Also boys only wore dresses up until about 2 or 3 years of age and every picture I've ever seen they were always white.
People tagged in this photo
Advertisement
Topic related photos
Lost & Found
Help reunite mystery or 'orphan' photos that have lost their families.
Photos with the names and dates lost in history. AncientFaces has been reuniting mystery and orphan photos with their families since we began in 2000.
This 'Lost & Found' collection is of photos foun... 
Portraits
Portrait photographs and paintings of our loved ones and ancestors.
Before photos we had paintings of family members - most usually these were reserved for the well off. The era of modern photography began with the daguerreotype, in 1839. Since the advent of photogr... 
Advertisement
Followers
Debora Reese
Brannan, Baker, Bednarek, Campbell, Cox, Fikes, Lapp, Little, Meadows, Moore, Mosley, Parker, Reese, Rogers,
Sandra Edwards
About me:I haven't shared any details about myself.
Richard Ziers
About me:I haven't shared any details about myself.
Shannon Eberhardt
born: shannon renee mckiddy
on 07/30/1979 in cincinnati, ohio to ernest & cindy mckiddy
one sister: kathleen savannah mckiddy but goes by lala
one sister: kathleen savannah mckiddy but goes by lala
June Dominguez
About me:I haven't shared any details about myself.
Advertisement