As more rendezvous booshways, dog-soldiers and participants learn to assess the authenticity of the stuff seen at rendezvous, we can improve the authenticity of our events. One of the most important things we need to accomplish is to convince booshways and dog soldiers to push the issue, and require participants to document the authenticity of questionable items. In Part I of this series, we discussed ways to document that an item was indeed present on the North American frontier prior to the year 1840. In Part II, we'll explore ways to document that a modern copy of that historical item is accurate and authentic.

The most authentic items one might have in an historical outfit would be original antique artifacts known to have been in use at a specific time and place. Very few such artifacts are used by living history enthusiasts. Most which have survived the past 150 to 250 years are irreplaceable should they be lost or damaged, and many have deteriorated into such fragile condition that they can no longer be used for their intended purpose. Rather than using priceless artifacts as we try to create our illusion of a time long gone, most living history hobbyists use Artifakes.

Historical artifakes may be classified as approximations, facsimiles, reproductions, or replicas. Each of these terms has a specific and unique definition. The term "reproduction" implies a nearly exact imitation of an existing thing. A " replica" is a thing which is identical to the original in all respects, and a "facsimile" is defined as a close reproduction made of the same materials as the original, but which may differ in scale (Websters 1001). An "approximation" is similar in appearance and/or function to an artifact, but made with different materials or techniques. Documenting the authenticity of artifakes requires that one documents the appearance of the original item. Primary resources for such documentation include artifacts collected and cataloged by professional archaeologists, which can be found in museums and sometimes in privately owned collections. If the original item is not available for inspection, the next best primary resource consists of clear photographs of the original, preferably shown resting near an object such as a yardstick or ruler which can be used to document the scale of the item. A surprising number of good photographs of historical artifacts can be found in books and magazines written for antique dealers and collectors.

Replicas imply an extremely high degree of authenticity which can be judged only when the replica is compared to the original item. Since reproductions and facsimiles don't require quite the same extremely high standard of detail as replicas there are other primary resources useful for documenting the authenticity of these artifakes. The best are field drawings and sketches made by contemporary artists. Paintings based on those drawings and sketches may also be useful, but are much less reliable. Historical artists, like their modern counterparts, were often willing to change a few details here and there to suit the tastes and preferences of their paying clients. Sometimes descriptions of objects in contemporary journals, diaries, newspapers and other documents provide sufficient detail to allow one to assess the relative authenticity of a copy.

Secondary and tertiary resources are much less reliable than primary resources, but are more readily available to amateur living history enthusiasts. The best of these are drawings made by people who are intimately familiar with the original items. The most common sources of such drawings are the various sketchbooks published within the living history genre. Some of my favorite sketchbooks are those published by The Fur Press, the publishing arm of the Museum of the Fur Trade in Chadron, Nebraska. I especially like these because the drawings are of objects which are displayed in the museum. Having been able to compare sketches to the actual artifacts during a visit to the museum I'm satisfied that they are accurately depicted. Although professional archaeologists or historians have little use for sources so far removed from the original items, most of the available sketchbooks adequately support claims of authenticity for many items commonly used by living history enthusiasts.

Approximations of artifacts are often not very authentic, but few people claim they are. Nonetheless they are quite common in the living history sports. Among the most common approximations seen at historical rendezvous are canvas tipis which only approximate the appearance and function of skin-covered lodges used by historical Native Americans. Other examples of common historical approximations include clothing made of modern calico prints and knives made of stainless or damascus steel. At living history events approximations of historical artifacts fall into a sort of gray area of acceptability. Approximations are almost never accepted at serious historical reenactments, but the rules of authenticity enforced (or not enforced) at most historical rendezvous allow a bit more latitude. If the materials used to construct original historical items are no longer available or are prohibitively expensive, approximations of those objects may be allowed by rendezvous organizers. The more closely an approximation resembles the original artifact, the more likely it is to be accepted. For example, white or painted canvas tipis are much more likely to be accepted than lean-to shelters made from blue Polytarps. Modern items camouflaged to look like historical artifacts may also be classed as approximations. Some are so artfully constructed that no one notices they are not quite what they seem. Ice chests built into wooden blanket chests or HBCo. cassettes represent common examples of well camouflaged artifakes.

While some approximations skirt along the blurry edges of historical authenticity, many items seen at historical rendezvous have little or no resemblance to things that we can document as being in use in the North American frontier prior to 1840. Relatively subtle examples of such anachronistic items include campfire irons, wood burning stoves and folding wooden camp furniture. Though these can't be documented, they are all things which help make "primitive" camp life a bit more comfortable, and are accepted (sometimes grudgingly) at many historical rendezvous. More glaring examples of anachronistic stuff seen at prominent regional and national-level historical rendezvous, and even allegedly juried historical reenactments, include rubber-soled cowboy boots, aniline-dyed chicken and turkey feathers, a wide range of electronic appliances and plastic items of all sizes, colors and descriptions.

Many anachronistic items seen at rendezvous are things that are so common in modern life we tend to overlook them. That is, we overlook them unless they happen to adorn someone else's outfit.

This was illustrated by an incident at the 1990 Western National Rendezvous at which I dared to wear the armband of a volunteer dogsoldier. As I ambled along Trader's Row, a participant dressed as a nineteenth century Lakota woman approached me to complain about the anachronistic rubber soles on someone else's moccasins. The complainant's face burned scarlet with embarrassment, or perhaps rage, when I asked if those rubber shoe soles were any more offensive than the modern disposable diaper worn by the toddler in her arms.

So, where do we draw the line between authenticity and acceptability? That question has haunted buckskinners for as long as we've been participating in living history activities and each of us seems to have a different answer. The standards of authenticity at historical rendezvous have evolved considerably over the past 20 or so years. In the late 1970s almost anything constructed of natural materials was considered more or less acceptable. As our historical research has become more sophisticated, the boundaries of acceptability have become more clearly defined, yet there is still a considerable gray area.

Each living history event in the nation must determine its own general philosophy, but I would suggest that at the large regional and national rendezvous the rules of authenticity should be more strict, and more aggressively enforced than ever before. I would gladly embrace the booshway with the courage to prohibit any item which cannot be documented through primary sources. It might be a relatively small event. Such a strict interpretation of historical authenticity would certainly weed out the "wannabes" but I'm willing to bet an historically authentic India rubber canteen* against a folding horn pocket lantern** that the rest of us would have a heck of a lot of fun.

* 9 India rubber canteens are documented in an Invoice of Sundry Merchandise from the Rocky Mountain Outfit 1836 under charge of Fontenelle, Fitzpatrick, & Co.: Papers of the American Fur Company: Reel 7 vols. Y and Z: Missouri Historical Society: as copied in the American Mountain Men Internet Web Site, http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/html/rmo1836.html, 1999.

** 5 folding horn pocket lanterns are documented in In Rear: Invoices of Goods Bought at Philadelphia, May 27-July 13, 1768, Baynton, Wharton & Morgan Papers preserved in Pennsylvania State Archives.