How it works
From evidence to the next question.
SARVAH does not stop at finding documents. It brings them into relation, shows where they agree or conflict, and turns what remains unknown into a question that can be pursued.
Four movements
Evidence → relationships → hypotheses → questions
Evidence
Start with what you have: an object, an image, a catalogue entry, an archive reference, a name or a question. Each source keeps its origin, date and context.
Relationships
People, objects, places, events and institutions are identified and linked. Every link records the source that supports it.
Hypotheses
Where sources disagree, competing claims are kept side by side, each with its evidence. An attribution or a provenance step remains a hypothesis until the evidence supports it.
Questions
Gaps, contradictions and weak links become explicit questions: what is missing, which source could settle it, and who might help.
What stays visible at every step
Traceability
Every statement points back to the source it comes from.
Contradictions
Conflicting sources are shown side by side, not averaged away.
Uncertainty
The strength of each link is stated, including when it is weak or missing.
A worked example from public sources
One painting, four movements.
Jan van Eyck’s Virgin and Child with Canon Joris van der Paele (Musea Brugge, Groeningemuseum) is exceptionally well documented — which makes it a good place to see how evidence, uncertainty and questions sit together.
- 1 · Evidence
- The original frame carries an inscription naming Joris van der Paele, canon of St Donatian’s in Bruges, as commissioner and Jan van Eyck as painter, with the dates 1434 and 1436.
- 2 · Relationships
- Painter, donor, the church of St Donatian, the chaplaincies the donor founded, and the painting’s later journey: confiscated and taken to Paris on 21 August 1794, returned to Bruges in 1816.
- 3 · Hypotheses
- Was it made as an epitaph above the donor’s grave, or as an altarpiece? Published research notes that neither has been proven.
- 4 · Questions
- A specialist publication gives 1440 for the donor’s second chaplaincy; Wikipedia articles give 1442 (no reference) and 1443 (citing Rothstein, 2005). The claims do not carry equal weight. Which contemporary document could clarify the date, and how does it relate to the wording of the inscription?
Sources: Musea Brugge collection record · Flemish Art Collection web publication · Wikipedia.