Looking at the bold colors of the artist, can sometimes give you a clue. Brights reds and blues, I think is Europe.
"
Bold colors", when intended to be light-stable, were horribly expensive before the proliferation of synthetic dyes in the 19th Century. For millennia before then, pigments were low-tech, e.g., pulverized minerals or other natural materials, notably for blue: the decorative mineral lapis lazuli, and for red: either the toxic mineral cinnabar (i.e., sulfide of mercury), or preparations of Old- or New-World scale insects. It might seem intolerable to readers accustomed to their
RGB computer-monitors, but low-tech light-stable colors did not provide a
palette that offered the artist the complete spectrum of colors.
So it is plausible that the combination of choices made for assorted colorful objects in a picture could dramatically narrow the possible locales and time-periods.
Be that as it may, perhaps we needn't appeal to art-historians; the picture seems already to be credited:
The Blessings of Mary
Taken from A GARLAND FOR OUR LADY
Irish Ursulines, 1920 with IMPRIMATUR
Jesus is shown with
infant-orange hair, and Mary is shown with medium-brownish hair that seems to my eyes to have reddish undertones, as if it had, um, matured from obviously
redder hair during her childhood. Wouldn't such a picture be very congenial to the
Irish faithful? Furthermore, this is yet another picture of a descendant of the
House of (King)
David who has a
long straight nose. Which reminds me of the sarcastic line in the 1970s film
Cabaret:
"She doesn't
/ look
Jєωιѕн / at all!"
So I'm confused. Is there some compelling reason to reject the simple assumption that the picture-of-interest might be a color illustration--maybe a
frontispiece complete with tissue paper--in exactly the
Irish book already identified? Might it have been printed entirely with
spot-color (e.g., as used for (at least some) color plates in the 1911
Encyclopædia Britannica), which is far better adapted to accurate digital scanning, archiving, and (re)printing than the far-less expensive--thus far more widespread--screened 4-color (CMYK) process?