Rembrandt and Rubens Revisited: Towards more Transparent and Replicable Attributions

This dissertation investigates the strengths and limitations of replication as a research method in the humanities, focusing on art historical attribution studies. Replication studies are repetitions of earlier studies that are typically carried out in the natural, biomedical, and social sciences to evaluate whether the initial findings can be corroborated. The epistemic potential of replication in art history was empirically researched by replicating a Rembrandt attribution study initially conducted in the 1990s, and by enhancing the future replicability of a current Rubens attribution. In both cases, expert judgements were structured through a newly developed procedure, the Attribution Expert Consensus Meeting (A-ECM), designed to enhance transparency, mitigate biases, and support future replicability of attribution assessments. Together, these cases demonstrate how replication can contribute not only to the corroboration of findings, but also to historiographical insight, methodological refinement, and the exchange of expertise. The dissertation further examines how strategies from structured consensus assessment may support a more transparent, collective, and equitable approach to connoisseurship and attribution. It additionally reflects on the broader implications of replication and structured consensus methods for advancing transparency, collaboration, and Open Science practices across the humanities.