Artbull Evidence And Sources

---
name: artbull-evidence-and-sources
description: Use when assembling and handling the non-visual evidence for an Art Bulletin article — objects, archives, primary documents, provenance, and technical findings — and citing them rigorously. Art-historical claims must rest on verifiable sources, not assertion. Guides evidence handling; it does not fabricate documents or attributions.
---

# Evidence & Sources (artbull-evidence-and-sources)

Beyond the object itself, an Art Bulletin argument rests on **documentary and material evidence**:
archives, inventories, contracts, letters, sale records, provenance chains, and technical/conservation
findings. This skill governs how you gather, weigh, and cite that evidence so an expert reviewer
trusts it. The looking lives in `artbull-visual-analysis`; here you handle everything else.

## When to trigger

- Building the documentary basis for dating, attribution, patronage, or reception
- Reconstructing a provenance or ownership history
- Weighing conflicting documents or an uncertain attribution
- A reviewer questioned a source, a transcription, or a chain of provenance

## Handling the evidence

1. **Go to primary sources.** Archival documents, inventories, contracts, wills, correspondence,
   sale and exhibition records — cite the **repository, collection, and shelf/inventory mark** so
   another scholar can find them.
2. **Quote and translate carefully.** Give original-language quotations where the wording matters,
   with accurate translations; note editorial interventions in transcriptions.
3. **Build provenance rigorously.** Document the ownership chain with sources for each link; flag
   gaps honestly, and surface any **spoliation / restitution** concerns rather than burying them.
4. **Weigh attribution evidence.** Combine documentary, visual, and technical grounds; state the
   degree of certainty ("attributed to," "circle of," "documented as") and what would change it.
5. **Use technical art history where it bears.** X-radiography, infrared reflectography, pigment and
   support analysis, dendrochronology — cite the report and who performed it; do not overstate what
   science proves.
6. **Distinguish evidence from inference.** Separate what a document *says* from what you *infer*;
   keep silent documents from being made to speak.

## Anti-patterns

- Asserting a date or attribution with no documentary or technical basis
- Citing a source you have not seen (or a digital surrogate as if it were the original) without saying so
- Provenance with unexplained gaps presented as continuous
- Over-claiming what a scientific report establishes
- Burying a restitution / authenticity problem the evidence raises

## Output format

```
【Claim supported】dating / attribution / patronage / reception
【Primary sources】repository + collection + shelf-mark
【Provenance】chain with sources; gaps flagged
【Technical evidence】report + analyst (if any)
【Certainty】documented / attributed / circle-of, and what would change it
【Next】artbull-images-and-permissions
```

## Supplementary resources

- [`../../resources/external_tools.md`](../../resources/external_tools.md) — archives, provenance indexes, technical-art-history resources
- [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — Chicago notes citation (CMOS ch. 14)