Useful Links for study of old Tarot cards and documents

Time Table of Tarot development / Michael J. Hurst
http://geocities.com/cartedatrionfi/Fragments.html

Old Tarot Iconography / Bob O'Neill
http://www.tarot.com/about-tarot/library/boneill/

Links to "Old playing cards and Tarot cards"
http://www.geocities.com/autorbis/oldcards.html

Old Tarot documents / Hans-Joachim Alscher
http://members.pgv.at/homer/tarock/index.htm

Many articles to old card decks / Andy Pollett
http://www.geocities.com/a_pollett/cardpgal.htm

Who's Who: Researchers
http://www.geocities.com/autorbis/Researchers.html

5x14 Theory about Origin of Tarotcards /autorbis
http://www.geocities.com/autorbis/pbm14new.html

Oldest Tarot Cards / autorbis
http://www.geocities/autorbis/marcello1.html

5000 Links for esoterical studies
http://www.psyche.com/psyche/links/tarot.html

Research Center for 15th century Tarot
http://trionfi.com

Wow Huck! Thanks a million.

How nice of you to take your time to give us these links. It is really appreciated.

Huck:

I appreciate your posting those links, although I have to confess I haven't gotten past the first one. Or rather, once I activated that link I felt more or less obligated to go to Michael Hurst's site and read all his stuff. It's a work in progress, apparently, and he appears to have up about one-third of what he plans to put there eventually.

It'll take a week at least to go through all those links, but it should be a pleasure.

I only have one minor disagreement with Hurst, where he comments on the scarcity of evidence and gaps in the evidence, and then assumes the old we-don't-have-enough-evidence-to-really-know-much stance. There may be huge gaps in the evidence, but my feeling is there's enough to construct a credible and supportable history of the subject, which he's done.

It's interesting to me that he and I have arrived at more or less the same conclusions working independently, and using the same limited number of resources, although he's put a lot more time and work in on it than I have. I've written up, in a very abbreviated form compared to his, pretty much the same story on my own modest little site.

My point is that once the accumulated debris of occultism is cleared away (which has been, I admit, no easy task), tarot history is not a particularly difficult subject. The evidence is limited, but it all points in the same direction. The history of cards is a cakewalk compared to something really difficult like, for example, New Testament history. I poked my nose into that neighborhood for a while before realizing that if a person is not well versed in Latin, Greek, and maybe Hebrew, he'd probably best not mess with it.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to reading the rest of those hot links, and I appreciate your presence here in our forum.

catboxer said:

Huck:

I appreciate your posting those links, although I have to confess I haven't gotten past the first one. Or rather, once I activated that link I felt more or less obligated to go to Michael Hurst's site and read all his stuff. It's a work in progress, apparently, and he appears to have up about one-third of what he plans to put there eventually.

It'll take a week at least to go through all those links, but it should be a pleasure.

I only have one minor disagreement with Hurst, where he comments on the scarcity of evidence and gaps in the evidence, and then assumes the old we-don't-have-enough-evidence-to-really-know-much stance. There may be huge gaps in the evidence, but my feeling is there's enough to construct a credible and supportable history of the subject, which he's done.

Click to expand...

Michael does it in his own style Not all entries are totally correct or correct in the sense, that it is the latest or best what is known, but Michael has his books and he follows them. He don't like too much internet sources, which is on one side good - because his work looks solide in its way, and on the other side bad, cause his result is not up-to-date or complete.

But it's the best for the moment, and it's a lot of work to do it better, so we feed Michael with better data, when we get them, but Michael has his princips and not always takes them. Okay, we've enough else to do ...

Simon Wintle is a concurrence to Michael, doing the same for the early time and we brought them together to merge their results - I don't know, if they already changed and improved. There were things, that Simon knows better and others, which only Michael had.
If you also have something "new", contact them. And don't forget to tell me or autorbis@yahoo.com, we gather such things.

Simon Wintle is on the Researcher-link, Who's who.


QUOTE]



It's interesting to me that he and I have arrived at more or less the same conclusions working independently, and using the same limited number of resources, although he's put a lot more time and work in on it than I have. I've written up, in a very abbreviated form compared to his, pretty much the same story on my own modest little site.

My point is that once the accumulated debris of occultism is cleared away (which has been, I admit, no easy task), tarot history is not a particularly difficult subject. The evidence is limited, but it all points in the same direction. The history of cards is a cakewalk compared to something really difficult like, for example, New Testament history. I poked my nose into that neighborhood for a while before realizing that if a person is not well versed in Latin, Greek, and maybe Hebrew, he'd probably best not mess with it.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to reading the rest of those hot links, and I appreciate your presence here in our forum. [/QUOTE]

If you search interpretation, you shouldn't start with Michael, but with the texts of autorbis.

Not all articles in the Links-list are written with the same spirit. There are individuals and individual opinions - naturally.