Here is a large group photo from one of the “Louise” albums, one of the few that has a date attached. I emailed this to a couple of you a few months ago, after my first visit to cousin David K., but I got very poor copies then, using a hand-held camera. This time I brought along my own scanner and captured the best copies I could hope for.
A few general comments: 1) The background is positively the North Dakota, Larson brothers’ homestead country. That is a little vague in this photo, but others confirm it. 2) I admit I am very poor at ID-ing people from old photos. After literally hours of staring and comparing with all the other pics I have, and with all my family info, I can only guess at a handful of these folks.
Even the adults named without ? marks are open to question. Here is another shot almost surely from the same occasion. Some of the same people are in it, wearing the same clothes, but there are key changes.
Both Walt and Lovell are there now. They are almost the only ones in either picture I am really certain about. Oscar and Olaf (if that is who they are) are now down in front; Axel and Isaac are missing, and Anna is standing behind that handsome dude with his sleeves rolled up, who is sitting next to Olaf. For a while, I thought that one might be Isaac, but the resemblance (in my eye) is extremely poor.
Thanks to Edna’s notes, and to other photos like the one below, I am sure I have her and Lenora pegged.
But yikes! Who the heck are “Ruth” and “Lois??” They are in the group shots as well. They both look older than Edna, so must have been born between approx. 1898-1903. I have scoured the “Larsons and Slettens,” plus the Samuelsons, Moens, and even the Nesseths, and can find no one by those names that could possibly be them. The little tyke with the white collar is another huge mystery. He must have been born in 1915 (give or take a year), and there is no one in my records who fits.
At least one of the babes-in-arms is also unaccounted for. One is surely Harvey. Another could be Vernon, although he was only three weeks old on this date, and none of them look that young. But even if so, there is no one to match the third baby. So, pipe up, cousins! I need some serious help on this one.
Next: a new, early picture of “Isaac’s house.”
5 CommentsLEAVE A COMMENT
Lois Larson Hall
Oct 25, 2009
Hi George, Here are some of my thoughts after first viewing, with magnifying glass no less, but that doesn’t help as much as I wish it would. Plain old observation/detective work offers more possibilities!
The woman holding the baby in picture #3, front row third from right, could be Mary Hart Larson, Oscar’s wife, holding baby Neva, born in January 1917. In picture #4 it’s probably Neva that one of the older girls is holding. .
Also picture #4, Lenora is probably holding her baby brother Harvey. Age wise and size wise that fits. It doesn’t fit age-wise for Vernon to be one of the babies.
No clue for the “Ruth” but I have a possibility for the “Lois” in the picture. One of the Amundson girls (Glenn’s sister) was named Lois. Interesting that the first picture was labeled “just relatives,” and while the Amundsons weren’t relatives of the Larsons, they are relatives of Mary Hart Larson if memory serves me right. I recall cousin Larry Larson telling me one time he was related to Amundsons. I can’t figure out what the relationship is unless it’s that Mary’s sister Emily Hart married Einar Amundson. Those two were the attendants at Mary & Oscar’s wedding, so that would mean Einar was Larry’s uncle by marriage if indeed Emily and Einar did marry one another.
Uncle Ivan, come to the rescue here! Even though these picture are from before you were born, some of the people might look familiar to you. In the meantime, I’m having fun trying to piece together possibilities of who’s who and will keep trying to see what clues are hidden in the pictures.
Oct 25, 2009
Great, thanks Lois, I had overlooked Neva. The woman could be Mary. I think she is the one I labeled Mina in the first picture (based only on the blurry wedding photos in “Larsons & Slettens,” I thought it looked like her), in which case the baby in the third picture could be Harvey instead. But Harvey and Neva are most likely two of the three babes in the “Edna” picture.
To view an enlarged version of the second picture only, you can click the mouse on it. It came out that way kind of by accident; if I had been more savvy, I could have made all the pictures like that.
Lois Amundson, eh? fascinating. I’ll have to try to find more info on the Amundsons, and the Harts. No luck in a quick Internet search. What was Papa Amundson’s name? And Papa Hart; was he Walter?
Oct 26, 2009
Checking the 1920 census, same page as Isaac’s and Axel’s families (including Smith Larson), I found the Inar Amundsen family. Lois had apparently not been born yet; Glenn was 5 years old. So, the Lois in the 1917 picture could not be Lois Amundson. If there are Amundsons in the group photo, they would be Inar and Emily (Glenn’s parents, so it would seem that Inar did indeed marry Emily Hart); and the toddler with the white collar is the right age to be Glenn. Could be, could be. In which case, one of the babies could be Glenn’s younger brother Norman.
Lois Larson Hall
Oct 28, 2009
Hi George, Quite by coincidence I had an e-mail this morning after e-mailing Trinity Lutheran to ask to be put on their mailing list, and who should be the one to respond but Millie Amundson. I e-mailed back, told her about your web site, and suggested she and Ray might take a look at it to perhaps help with some identifications in those old pictures.
I don’t have any names of earlier generations of Harts or Amundsons. Larry Larson might–??–or Ray Amundson if he rings in on any of this.
You might recall that in an earlier post I mentioned that Inar Amundson was “clerk” of the Earl District school and was one of the signers on my mother’s first teaching contract.
Oct 28, 2009
That’s great, Lois. I clarified a few things re the Amundsons, and will be delighted to get Millie’s input. I have a post partly drafted on the Amundsons, but will hold it for a little bit.