I've always thought that the "authenticity" wanted by tourists is that the
representation is an accurate portrayal of whatever is being represented.  We
grow up with TV, movies, and theme park portrayals of history and nature, and
we (at least some of us) recognize that these have been doctored to make them
more palatable or more interesting.  Historical shows add a love interest, or
some controversy to add suspense; nature shows throw creatures together to make
a combat scene; unpleasant facts are blythely left out to avoid complicating
the issue; etc.  For an example, the James Clavell novels set in China and
Japan show certain attitudes toward Europeans on the part of the native people.
Is this "authentic" (i.e., accurate)?

What a museum or historical site portrays is "supposed" to be a
version that we can trust.  If controversy is mentioned in the exhibit, it is
because there was such a controversy, not because it helps the story "flow".
If animals are placed together in an exhibit, it is because they do occur
together that way.  If a prehistoric creature is shown as being so huge, it is
because we have reason to believe it *was* that huge.  We can believe it,
because it is "authentic".

Robin Panza                             [log in to unmask]
Section of Birds, Carnegie Museum of Natural History
4400 Forbes Ave., Pittsburgh,  PA  15213  USA