Content area
Full Text
ABSTRACT
This article argues for a modified constructivist approach to archaeological object authenticity which takes the object's materiality seriously. This is accomplished by defining authenticity not in relation to the age of an object but to its age-value, i.e., the quality or condition of being (of the) past-its pastness. Pastness is the result of a particular perception or experience. It derives from, among others, material clues indicating wear and tear, decay, and disintegration. These material clues, and thus the presence of pastness, can be created entirely in the present. [Keywords: Authenticity, materiality, constructivism, pastness, patina, ruins, retrochic]
(ProQuest: ... denotes non-US-ASCII text omitted.)
Introduction: Archaeological Authenticity and Materiality
Authentic objects intrigue academic and non-academic audiences alike, perhaps more so today than ever before. As I am writing, there are 287 million Google hits for "authentic." Although the notion and definition of authenticity has been on the academic agenda throughout the social sciences and humanities for decades (Starn 2002), evidently it is still a hot topic today (see, e.g., Hall 2006, Gilmore and Pine 2007, Jerome 2008, Knudsen and Waade 2010, Pirker et al. 2010; see also recent issues of Annals of Tourism Research). Maybe the interest in what is authentic, unique, and original is not surprising in a global age of virtual realities and perfect copies, uncertain belonging and increasing "sameness."
Behind the academic interest in authentic objects and experiences lies a major intellectual conflict between materialist and constructivist approaches. Whereas the former argues that there is a discernible basis of authenticity that largely rests on an object's material substance, the latter approach denies this and points instead to the term being variable, negotiable, and relative to a specific social and cultural context. According to the first approach, authenticity is thus considered to be inherent in an object and subject to matter, while in the second approach authenticity is deemed to be a projection deriving entirely from the minds of the onlookers (Starn 2002, Reisinger and Steiner 2006). Some commentators suggested already that "the term and concept should be abandoned in any research that discussed the genuineness of objects and activities, because the different concepts, values and perspectives on the authenticity of objects and activities are numerous, contradictory, and irreconcilable" (Reisinger and Steiner 2006:66)....