This is the only photograph I have of my 3X great grandmother, Mary Elizabeth (Scripture) Tarbox (1827-1866). I have my suspicions about the picture based on Mary’s face, her hands, the blanket covering her skirt and the hint of a wooden chair seen on the left side of the photo and an early photographic family event.

I think this was taken right after she died and it’s a mourning photo. Here eyes are sort of closed, her hands are very stiffly posed with no bending at all of her fingers on either hand, which I think is very strange.

The blanket in front isn’t placed on her lap, but is placed as if it’s trying to hide something. Perhaps they couldn’t pose her legs/feet in a realistic fashion?

The chair in the 1860s would have been very ornate. The little edge of the chair seen in this photo looks more like a brace and there might be a higher portion of this chair keeping her upright, but we can’t see it.

What could ChatGPT 40 tell me to confirm my suspicions?

Answer:

This is a fascinating historical image, likely a tintype or ambrotype, dating from around the 1850s to early 1860s, based on the clothing, photographic style, and the subject’s birth/death dates. Here’s a breakdown of the details you asked about:

---

1. Her Facial Appearance

• Blurred or “flat” look: The odd appearance of her face likely stems from the photographic process. Early photographs required long exposure times (10–30 seconds or more), so any movement—especially blinking—would cause blur. Her eyes may be partly closed or caught mid-blink, a common occurrence in tintypes and ambrotypes.
• Lighting and contrast: Lighting in these early images was often harsh and frontal, which could wash out facial features or create a mask-like effect, especially when retouching was added afterward by hand.
• Photographic flaws: This image appears scratched and possibly has emulsion damage or aging artifacts that might further distort her features. The gloss of the tintype can also create light reflections that flatten the image.

---

2. Her Hand Position

• Crossed hands on lap: This was a typical pose for 19th-century portraits. It conveyed calmness, modesty, and composure, particularly for women. The pose also helped avoid motion blur during long exposures, as the hands remained still.

---

3. The Blanket or Fabric on Her Lap

• What you’re seeing is likely:
  • A decorative shawl or lap cover, used to add elegance or cover parts of the dress.
  • A prop blanket or studio drape, which photographers often used for compositional balance.
  • Fading or staining may create the illusion of an additional layer that isn’t actually there.

The lighter section could also be an artifact of photographic aging or emulsion damage, not an actual piece of fabric.

---

4. The Chair on the Left Side

• You’re right — Civil War–era parlor chairs were often ornate, with curved backs, upholstery, and carvings. However:
  • This chair looks plain and utilitarian, possibly a prop used in a rural or modest studio.
  • In smaller towns like Calais, Maine, photographic studios may not have had access to elaborate furnishings common in urban areas.
  • Early studios often used simple props to keep the focus on the subject.

---

Conclusion:

This image is a valuable example of early photography, likely taken between 1855–1865, aligning with Mary Elizabeth Tarbox’s lifetime. The slightly “odd” or ghostly appearance is typical of the limitations of mid-19th century portraiture and not unusual. It likely doesn’t reflect any physical anomaly—just a combination of blink, exposure, and age-related image degradation.

If you’re interested, I can also attempt to digitally enhance or colorize this for clarity.

I then specifically questioned about it being taken after she died:

That’s an excellent and insightful question — and in fact, mourning photography (sometimes called post-mortem photography) was a common practice in the mid-19th century. However, there are several clues in this image that suggest Mary Elizabeth (Scripture) Tarbox was alive when this photo was taken:

---

🔍 Signs She Was Likely Alive

1. Posture and Hand Placement:
   • Her hands are deliberately and naturally crossed, not limp or positioned unnaturally by someone else.
   • Her shoulders and back are upright, consistent with a seated pose maintained during a long exposure.
   • Post-mortem photographs usually show stiffness or awkward positioning (due to rigor mortis or the difficulty of posing a deceased body).
2. Facial Expression:
   • While her expression appears odd or blurred, that’s likely due to mid-blink or slight movement, which wouldn’t happen in death.
   • Her mouth is relaxed, not tightly closed — undertakers often had to close the mouths of deceased subjects, sometimes with visible effort.
3. Eyes:
   • Her eyes appear partially closed, which is actually more consistent with a live subject blinking during the exposure than with a corpse, which would either have fully shut eyes or eyes held open.
4. Photography Style:
   • This is a studio portrait, taken with props (chair, drape), in a formal but typical photographic style of the time. Post-mortem images were usually more somber or styled to resemble the person lying in repose (e.g., reclining or in a coffin).

---

🕯 Could It Still Be Mourning-Related?

It’s possible this was taken during a period of personal mourning, such as after the death of a family member, rather than her own. During the 1850s–60s:

• Women in mourning often wore dark clothing, which she appears to be wearing here.
• However, the dress does not fully conform to strict Victorian mourning fashion, which involved dull black crêpe, lack of adornment, and often a mourning cap or veil.

---

📸 Timeline Check

• Mary died in 1866, at age 39.
• This photo appears to date to around 1855–1865, so it was likely taken a few years before her death, not after.

---

✅ Conclusion

This does not appear to be a post-mortem photograph. While it’s aged, slightly damaged, and she looks solemn (as was the custom), her body posture, hand positioning, and facial evidence suggest she was alive when it was taken.

If you’d like, I can enhance or sharpen the image to give a clearer look at her facial expression and help confirm further.

So, ChatGPT 4o doesn’t agree with me. I still believe this was taken about March 10, 1866, the day she died.

I asked Perplexity the same question and got a similar answer about this being a post-mortem photograph:

Thank you for sharing the image and your thoughtful question about whether this could be a post-mortem photograph. Let’s analyze the evidence in the context of mid-19th-century photographic practices.

Visual Clues in the Photo

1. Posture and Hands

• Stiffness: The hands are indeed quite stiff and fingers are straight, which can sometimes be seen in post-mortem photography. However, this pose was also common in living sitters, as it helped them remain still during long exposures.
• Crossed Hands: This was a standard pose for both living and deceased subjects in the era. In post-mortem photos, hands were sometimes arranged this way to create a peaceful, dignified appearance.

2. Body Support and Chair

• Chair/Brace: The visible wooden element on the left could be part of a posing chair or brace. These were used for both living and deceased subjects to maintain an upright position.
• Blanket/Lap Covering: The dark band or cloth across her lap could be a modesty cloth, a prop to help with posing, or to conceal the lower body if it was difficult to arrange naturally. In post-mortem photos, such coverings were sometimes used to hide signs of death or to support the body.

3. Facial and Body Liveliness

• Head and Body Position: The head appears well-supported and upright, and the body posture is symmetrical. In many post-mortem images, especially of adults, there can be a certain slackness or unnatural angle to the head and limbs, though skilled photographers often mitigated this.
• General Appearance: The subject appears well-groomed, with carefully arranged clothing and hair. While this is not exclusive to living subjects, it does not show overt signs of post-mortem rigidity or lifelessness.

4. Contextual Factors

• Era and Location: By the 1850s–1860s, post-mortem photography was practiced, but it was more common for infants and children. Adult post-mortem portraits were less frequent, though not unheard of, particularly if the deceased was young or the family wished to memorialize them in a dignified way.
• Studio Practices: In a prosperous town like Calais, with experienced photographers, both living and deceased subjects could be posed skillfully.

Conclusion: Is This a Post-Mortem Photo?

Possible, but not definitive.

• The stiff hands and possible use of props are consistent with both post-mortem and living portraits of the era.
• There are no clear, unmistakable signs of death (such as visible supports, unnatural limpness, or obvious attempts to conceal lifelessness).
  The overall presentation is dignified and typical of formal studio portraits, whether for the living or recently deceased.
• Most likely, this is a standard studio portrait of a living person, posed with the help of supports and props common at the time.
• However, without additional evidence (such as family records, photographer’s notes, or comparison to confirmed post-mortem images), it cannot be ruled out entirely that this is a post-mortem photograph. The clues present are suggestive but not conclusive.
• In summary:
• This image fits the conventions of both living and post-mortem portraiture from the mid-19th century. While some elements could indicate post-mortem status, there is no definitive evidence to confirm this, and the photograph is most consistent with a formal studio portrait of a living subject.

In spite of AI, I still believe this is a post-mortem photograph.

Readers, what do you think?

UPDATE:

Here is a crop of the bottom right corner near Mary’s hands. This is as enhanced as I think it will ever be. Might this be a small vase of flowers?

Second Update:

Here is a photo, also a tintype, taken of her husband, George Tarbox, about the same time:

George looks very normal and alive. It even looks like the same tablecloth where he is resting his arm.

Why would the two photos look so different?