Anthony Smith has proposed that the key quality vital to the adoption of a given symbol or set of symbols as part of a national identity is that symbol's authentic resonance to a preexisting and enduring ethnic community. This explanation must not be taken lightly, if only because it is the explanation by which nationalist ideology itself most often justifies its use of symbols and is therefore indicative of both the ideal vision of the nation and the expectations of the mobilized population. At the same time, however, numerous cases have been seen in which the authenticity of symbols central to a national identity, though perceived, is clearly fictive, and an image presented and accepted as an enduring symbol of the community has, in fact, been invented or elevated through the nation-building process. Thus, although authenticity may significantly improve the capacity of a symbol to be adopted by a national ideology, clearly it is neither a sufficient nor necessary condition; and although the perception of authenticity may be a vital component to a symbol's widespread acceptance, that perception is dependent on something other than fact.

So while I would concur with Smith as to the importance of the perception of authenticity to the acceptance of a given symbol, as well as with his rejection of Gellner's conclusion that in the construction of a national mythology from ethnic–symbolic components “any shard or patch would serve as well,” the question of the source of this perception of authenticity – of why it can or would be invented for certain symbols and not for others; of why one “shard or patch” might prove better than another – remains unanswered. Indeed, the fact that symbols of defeat, in particular, are frequently attributed with an invented authenticity in the process of nation building would suggest that this category of symbol has particular relevance toward understanding the change in meaning systems that accompanied and effected the rise of the nation. Something about these symbols makes them easy to accept as authentic national signifiers, and the extraordinary consensus within nations surrounding such symbols, as well as the otherwise inexplicable fanaticism that tends to accompany threats leveled against them, suggests that their purpose is not merely rhetorical but also incorporates a numinous quality demanding a deeper psychological explanation.