Where did tarot come from ... your views ...

The question, when Tarot originated, depends on the question, what Tarot is.
Of course this question could be answered according to the preference of any speaker, and there is "free speech" for anybody.

However, we live in a world full of speakers and it has become convenience to organize language in a manner, that somebody else could understand our own talking.

So "Tarot comes from old Egyptia" only works as a sufficient note in communication, when before it is noted, that "Tarot" in this statement "is not limited to all what is printed or painted on small pieces of paper". Old Egyptyans didn't know paper.

Whenever we talk of paper, we're rather fixed on the development in 14th/15th century, which did lead to playing-cards, and "under this limited condition" nothing else is earlier than the 16 trump cards in the Michelino-deck, described by Marziano da Tortona and commissioned by Filippo Maria Visconti.

http://trionfi.com/0/b/

A lot of people would say, that this is not "Tarot" and would like to imply further conditions which must be fulfilled to "speak of Tarot", for instance it should have 22 trumps, 16 courts and
40 number cards.
Count Maria Matteo Boiardo in his Tarocchi poem perhaps is the oldest with this stylish element, but if you take a look at the details, you might realize, that this is totally different of your possible expectations.

http://trionfi.com/0/h/

Unsatisfied the mind might wander to the Pierpont-Morgan-Bergamo-Tarocchi, earlier than the Boiardo-Poem and with much more similar-to-"our-tarot" pictures. But - here evidence seems demand to accept, that this deck has an earlier state as a 5x14-deck,

http://trionfi.com/0/f/11/

not fulfilling the "22"-scheme, which often is seen of some importance for the "true" Tarot deck.

Well - leaving the reality of paper-use one might search for earlier Tarots, just assuming, that the idea to Tarot was first and then - later or much later - the transport from another media to the paper media happened.

This leaves the chance to offer a lot of theories, how it happened.

A "22"-group, organised in a row - as in the paper-Tarot - connected to pictures - as in the paper Tarot - is known from very early Egyptia (ca. 2400 BC). Small arcana are missing. The pictures were commonly at the southern side of temple - as far I'm informed. They don't look like the Tarot-cards - but who cares. Is the Rider-Waite really similar to the Crowley? What is similarity?

Let's assume the following:

Tarot is the idea to sort the world in 22 chapters or pictures or ideas. As any other mathematical concepts it's "before the world", that means rather old. Endlessly old - per definition.

..... (next post)

************

There were various ways to produce compositions of allegorical figures before playing cards. And they did so, presenting "systems" in books or in paintings at the wall, in churches etc.. For instance the zodiac, the 7 planets, in literature by listing or other arrangements, orders of angels, allegories to chess-figures etc.., Olympic gods, geomantic orders, pictures of the 12 monthesmuch funny ideas.
But, they did forget to tell us about Tarot and about its special sequence. That's curious, isn't it? Whoever was on Tarot before the origin of playing cards ... this tells us, that there weren't much people involved - at least that, if any. And when Tarot as playing cards started, they didn't start with that, what we might perceive as "archetypical" or ideal, for instance with 22 trumps, but just with their own common pictures and other numbers. Incredible ... as if they wanted to hide something, all mankind in cooperation to hide the secret knowledge of Tarot to the eyes of the future, fighting with each other other in the past, but unique in the demand .... not to present Tarot.
Finally, when they had Tarot and started not to stay in secrecy with it, they played cards with it and they nearly did forget about it, as if it would be totally uninteresting. Interesting, isn't it?

Do you really think, that the "archetypical world" - if something like this exists - needs necessarily pictures? These motifs of Tarot are always different, seldom and according to printing conditions they kept one motif or presentation idea alive a longer time. It#s a field of creativity, not more.

If there were something before Tarot in its form as playing cards, and it was REALLY similar to Tarot - are you sure, that you would acknowledge it with a fixation on pictures or pictoral reprentation?

Perhaps we should turn the question. What's archetypical? Whatever this is, this should be called Tarot? How about that? Is that a way to solve the problem how to define Tarot?

Article ar aeclectic

Content

• Tarot history isn't very well organised (07-07-2003)
• what Tarot historians might do at the moment (10-07-2003)
• Poll: Where did tarot come from ... your views (06-08-2003)
• Reconstructing the Cary-Yale (12-10-2003)