Reflections on “Authenticity”

Abstract

Archivists benefit from periodic self-critique of the tenets of our theory and practice. Broad societal movements such as postmodernism, technological advancements, and political or legal factors prompt us to reexamine our convictions and our position in society. Openness to reviewing our principles is necessary for professional growth and indicative of a healthy profession. “Authenticity” confronts our understanding of the integrity and identity of archival records. The concept that a record is authentic when it is what it purports to be is presented as a part of the professional canon. Furthermore, the criteria for assessing authenticity are described as different canons ‘depending on the context in which the authenticity is addressed.’ ‘Canon’ is an interesting word choice, one that I have not encountered in my work as an archivist nor in the professional literature. “Authenticity” defines canon as ‘a body of principles, rules, standards, or norms’ for a discipline or profession. Archivists find collective aspiration and purpose in values statements and codes of ethics. Archival practice is guided by standards and best practices that have been forged through experience. Where does ‘canon’ fit among these existing authorities? Within the confines of authenticity, there are indeed rules and standards – or canons – for verifying authenticity that differ within jurisprudence, diplomatics, and archival science contexts. But canon as a ‘body of principles’ implies a larger entity of which authenticity itself would be a part. Indeed, authenticity is an explicit component of the Society of American Archivists’ Code of Ethics for Archivists, which according to SAA serves ‘as principles of the profession.’ I am unaware of any source claiming to be the authoritative canon of the archival profession. Principles, standards, codes, and canon might simply be interchangeable words describing the macro aspirations that unify the profession, and the micro-level rules that enable our practice within specific domains like authenticity. Although ‘canon’ possesses connotations of immutability, the author examines the approaches for determining the intrinsic and extrinsic properties of authentic records in different contexts over time, covering: legal traditions, 17 century diplomatics, Jenkinsonian theory, and InterPARES and other initiatives grappling with electronic records. Despite the complexities of preserving authentic electronic records, and factors introduced by electronic records laws, the presented canon is deemed ‘probably the most