Authenticity according to the Oxford dictionary is an adverb of authentic. Authentic has the meaning of - A: of undisputed origin; genuine, B: reliable or trustworthy". To most medieval re-enactors or "medievalists" it is encapsulated in this statement - if I was transported back to the time that I'm re-enacting I would blend in and no one would notice me.
As a goal it is in many ways our greatest gift and at the same time our greatest bane. We revel in it as an accolade and use it as a brutal club to put down those we don't like. In fact the club seems to come out more often than the accolade as you are more likely to hear "that's the wrong colour", "they didn't do it that way back then" than you are "wow excellent piece of work" or "they really know their history".
It doesn't matter which group you are with they all seem to have the need to be authentic or the need to beat people about the head that they or the group they belong to are not authentic. It can also work in reverse with people who are overzealous in the cause of authenticity being referred to by such derogatory terms as "anal retentive", "art's nazi", "authenticity fascist" or the over long "this is a game not my life and it seems you need to get one - a life that is".
Re-reading my previous few paragraphs make's me realise that I have a real dislike for the negative aspects of authenticity and that, to me at least, this negative attitude is more prevalent than the positive one. I must also admit that I have contributed at times to the negative aspect of this situation on many an occasion. Part of the reason I think this negative attitude is more common is that it is easier to do than the positive. The negative merely requires you to find fault and to highlight it and by doing so you feel yourself elevated because you, of course, would never do such a heinous thing. I also think the positive is hard to do because we have no defined ideals, no Holy Grail - so to speak, for what constitutes genuine authenticity. If you ask anyone what they think authenticity is they'll either give you a focussed definition that concentrates on one or two items or a very vague airy-fairy ideal. In addition if you highlight the positive in someone else it can make you feel like you have to catch up and catching up can be a pain because it costs you or you don't have the time. Of course, if you highlight it in yourself you're either made to feel like you're big-noting yourself or you will open yourself up to criticism in some other area where your authenticity is not as good.
So the question is what is authenticity for a re-enactor. Is there just one single definition that covers it all or are multiple definitions needed? Do we need to map out the attributes of authenticity on different axes of a graph and then plot each person's fulfillment of each attribute, which will give us an index of their authenticity level? Personally I don't think we need to go that far and I do believe there is more than one type of authenticity.
The first level or degree of authenticity as I see it is that which is divided into personal authenticity and group authenticity. What I mean here is that each individual in a group can be authentic but as a group they are not authentic. For example say a person starts re-enacting and they decide to become a knight of the 13th century. This person researches, builds etc until they achieve a level of personal authenticity that is unassailable. Now say that person attracts other people to them who also do all the correct research and build their gear correctly and become authentic replicas of a 13th century knight. Each one again has achieved personal authenticity. However when they do a display or show as a group they have no group authenticity because they have none of the accompanying people that would have attended or been with a knight whether they were on the battlefield or tournament field or in a feasting hall. Individually they are authentic but as a group they are not. This to me highlights the very slippery nature of authenticity.
So what other levels of authenticity are there? To me the are three further categories of authenticity which I refer to as "medieval authenticity", "museum authenticity" and "living authenticity".
Medieval authenticity is the authenticity that attracts the most people, is the most free spirited and is usually where most groups start out. It is also the one to engender the most derogatory statements. It's the authenticity that consists of putting on a T-tunic (not a tunic), wearing lace up military boots and a long leather belt. If you're fighting you have a plywood shield with a bolted on handle and shield boss, wear a "spangenhelm" and swing a "Viking" sword. Most people would disagree that this was authentic but it is authentic to the ideal of being "medieval". In this case being "medieval" is just having the look of not being modern or even the look of someone from the recent past. So it fits most people's idea of what someone looked like in "medieval times". It is accurate to that idea and reliably portrays that idea therefore it is an authentic portrayal of that idea. What it is not is authentic to actual historical events, people or places but it is not meant to be. Most groups start out this way because it's a few friends who get together and decide it would be fun to beat each other up with brute force and blunt objects. Some times a group stays doing this level of authenticity because they're enjoying themselves and see no reason to change. They're happy and having fun so we should either leave them alone or occasionally join in - after all who amongst re-enactors doesn’t like dressing up and having a bash. Other groups do however move on usually to a mix between this level and the next one. Remember authenticity takes time it can rarely be done over night unless you have lots of money or no other life to speak of.
The next level of authenticity is museum authenticity. It's the authenticity whose ultimate goal seems to be to please academics and educate the public. It is the authenticity of grave finds, academic research and exhibition catalogues. It is also the rich person's authenticity for two reasons. First it will cost you significant time, money and effort to achieve. Secondly this type of authenticity tends to congregate towards the rich end of the medieval life.
This authenticity is in many ways more accurate than medieval authenticity but in other ways less honest. I'm certain most people know how this level of authenticity is more accurate than the previous one and so I don't need to cover it more than briefly. It is more accurate because it relies on actual data from the period and place people are interested in. Great, everyone says, this is what we want but how is it less honest if we're using good research. The answer is we may be using good research but we are not using it to achieve good results. Most museums when they present a display of a particular period and place will, because of the quantity of material or its condition, present the best items they have. They will not present the tattered pieces of a robe for example even if it is the most representative of that period instead they will put forth a robe that is in much better condition but less typical of the period. There are a number of reasons for this. A tattered robe is less interesting to the general public than an intact one, the tattered robe is too fragile to display and finally if you have a choice you always like to put your best foot forward not your second best. The result for us is that you are more likely to see and have extensive information on a wealthy noble's tunic than you are a peasant's tunic or even a lower class knight's tunic. After all they got buried in their finest gear where as the peasant's or lower caste knights finest gear either didn't exist or was bequeathed to someone in the family.
To carry this further think of a recent event you've attended. At the camping event were the period tents you saw the types owned by wealthy individuals or were there lean-tos and bedrolls on the ground. At a fighting event were there more swords in the combat than would have been seen in period and more armour than would be likely in the period portrayed. When you went feasting how were the tables decorated and the hall lighted - rich man, poor man, beggar man, thief - which was it. We do a lot of the above not because it’s authentic but because of safety, privacy, the need for creature comforts and the poor man side of things doesn't interest us. In addition our society is largely egalitarian and this means we all want to be equal so we are loath to be serfs when someone else gets to be the noble. It's also less romantic and less fulfilling. So while we may achieve personal authenticity our group authenticity becomes suspect because we are all wearing the same styling, cut and quality of tunics, belts, shoes etc. In fact our clothing is one of the biggest signs of museum authenticity because few if any of us patch our clothes. Once a tunic becomes worn or torn we either throw it out and make a new one or consign it to be worn under armour where no one can see it. How likely was this in period for all but the very rich?
So to conclude with museum authenticity I have to say that it's closer to the ideal of being able to go back in time and not look out of place than medieval authenticity. That said however, it is a dead rich person's look which if we went back in time would either get us mugged almost immediately or have people pointing at us saying "dead man walking". It can be very authentic at a personal level but tends to fall apart at the group level.
The last category of authenticity is Living Authenticity. This is by far the hardest to achieve or even do. It requires you to not only read books and make things but also to actually think about what you are trying to achieve and how it will fit in. Take for example the torn or worn tunic I mentioned previously. Living authenticity would not replace the tunic but rather make a patch or darn the hole. The patch may be from the original material, from the tunic itself or from another piece of material that may or may not look similar. Once the tunic has reached it's used by date and can not be patched anymore it may be thrown away or cut down to make a tunic for a child.
You also need to think more about what you are attempting to achieve and where you are planning to do it. For example, at a camping event that will not involve the public the big tent with the bed etc is nice because creature comforts are always needed and appreciated. On the other hand if it is a one-day public event you might want to set up a lean-to rather than a large tent if it fits in with the people you are portraying.
Living authenticity not only requires you to read the latest research on the people and period you are interested in but also to find out the mix of people and what those less fortunate and therefore less recorded wore, did and ate etc. For the people and period I'm interested in - 13th century Turcoman - this would involve me in not only reading up on how the horse archer was dressed but also finding out what the guys on foot were wearing and how it differs from the horseman. It also requires me to look for portrayals of women and children who are even less discussed than the peasant for the period I am interested in as well as looking into family and social interactions for all these different groups in society.
This type of authenticity requires you to do a little extrapolating from related periods and places to fill in the gaps that are missing from the overall portrayal of the lifestyle you are interested in. This would be a no-no with museum authenticity where if it is not known you don't do it. It also means you have to be willing to discard items, objects and concepts when better information comes along. This form of authenticity as you can imagine is highly fluid and sometimes can make you feel like you're always changing and never achieving. It also in a way gives people greater access to re-enactment because they can be the poor person and have a basic set of gear and then move up the social scale as finances and time permit. It also allows the jaded long timer to try and do something hard and portray a poorer form of person that is little written about. It requires you to be willing to be less than another person in your group for the purposes of the display even if you are the founder or the one that's been in the longest.
I suppose the best way to sum up this form of authenticity is to say that unlike the others not only do you have to not look out of place but your whole group has to not be out of place if they went back in time.
So out of all these authenticates where do I feel I fit in. At the moment I would say I am a mixture of "Museum Authenticity" with some "Medieval Authenticity". The reason I say this is while I try to get the latest information on my area of interest it is hard at times to find what I'm looking for and so I tend to fall back on the this will do for the moment attitude. Of course what I would like to do is move on to the "living authenticity" but I can't seem to let go of what I'm doing now. So I figure I'm going to have to do this in stages and every once in awhile retreat back.
Last few of points about authenticity and I'll shut up. Firstly what I've mentioned above are conclusions I've come to after a lot of time doing re-enacting, taking breaks from it and watching what other people do. Given that I'll keep doing this for quite awhile yet the odds are I will disagree with what I've written down here at some time. This is to be expected authenticity is a slippery concept and one that changes as our knowledge of the past changes and our attitudes to it change. You should also note I did not cover language, personal interactions and what is right and wrong things to talk about during an event. Trying to speak another language is hard enough but trying to speak one that hasn't been spoken in centuries is for those who are either truly gifted or truly insane. Keeping how you interact with people at a display or event within "period" is hard to do and most people, including me, do not have the acting skills to carry it off at more than a very basic level. It would be interesting to visit or correspond with those at "living history" sites and see how they do it and see if we could use it at events which have different layouts and requirements rather than at a static display.