The Tarot symbols origin

Rosanne

Oh Happenstance....well I believe it can be here. In this forum.
...a chance circumstance.
Men with mamluk cards..... meet soldiers whom play cards. They play cards and talk about the journey ahead and their differences. Or do people think soldiers only grunt at each other?
The Soldier looks at the mamluk card and asks..
"what do those scribbles mean?"
and the Eastern gentlemen tells him they are predictions of sorts, lucky talismans, poetic verses......and those are Polo sticks!
The Italian soldier does not know what are Polo sticks, but thinks they look like Batons....
Now we know this happenstance occurred somewhere, because we have reasonable copies of Tarot card suits of mamluk origin painted in Italy. That is History.
So the Italian soldier may have won a mamluk deck and he thinks..we too have poetic verses, stories, Lady Fortuna, etc etc and we can have images that show increasing value from a low value trick to a high value trick.
So the History forum is the place to try and discover if and when these men met, did they exchange ideas, and is there some proof of this meeting. How likely they played cards...or did they have cards? Well 'did they have cards?" has already been answered.
So happenstance has a place here in the History forum.
It is harder to prove the esoteric link.....but I am sure those Eastern Christians would have told the Italians they had their own Pope...
"Tortollini!!! Your own Pope??? (So down the value scale goes the Roman Pope)
~Rosanne
 

Richard

There apparently is no historical evidence of esoteric influence on the development of tarot. That's why some 'purists' insist that there was no such influence. However, that's a logical fallacy, since the absence of evidence proves nothing whatsoever. Some people on both sides of the fence get all worked up over the issue. Surely there are more productive ways to expend energy than arguing about a pack of cards.
 

Rosanne

Yup ravenest... I am a proselytizer or possibly a prostrate prosodist.
I lay waste to ground like a locust. Especially if it is the ground others stand upon.
I cannot answer post 232. I am too prostrate.
Now interestingly enough from a historical perspective, the history of pyrotechnics or fireworks is much like the History of Tarot. It is in the same timeline and the same unavailability of facts. There is a hidden side to the alchemy, and some protection of methods, and confusion of origin. It was a secret art, a public performance, and an acknowledged danger to the welfare of the uninitiated. It was until the 17th century, not available to the masses, and used for the celebrations of the rich and Royal.
So from speculative point of view, I wonder who first sent that rocket showering stars coloured white or red- some Eastern taught Italian? Until we find the evidence we can only speculate upon the magic, and be amazed the largest users of fireworks in the world is Disneyland. Sounds like Tarot too eh?
~Rosanne
 

ravenest

Yep ... something in the stars lately ... it is also happening in another thread here ... and its not just me that has noticed it.

http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=203710&page=3

It goes like this ... you say someone is doing something (that they are not) then you harass them for the thing they are doing (which they aren't) and it turns out you are doing the thing (that you are) that you said they were doing (that they aren't).

I would ask what planetary transits might cause that, but I will have to go to the astrology forum.
 

Teheuti

we have reasonable copies of Tarot card suits of mamluk origin painted in Italy.
This is fabulous and important news. Do you have a link to these Tarot cards? I've only seen pictures of Mamluk playing cards - never Tarot. Do they include all the Trumps or only a portion?
 

Teheuti

I don't know what the rest of you think, but it seems to me that when someone comes on a group that was created to address a specific topic in ways that are clearly stated up-front, but that person refuses to stay within the topic and methodologies, that it is disrespectful to the group.

To "advocate or promote a belief" (Oxford Dictionaries) is one form of proslytizing. As is "to try to win over" or "spread the gospel to," or to sway others to their perspective.

For instance, saying "I am swayed toward the view that Plato had a great content of ‘Egyptian’ wisdom' . . ." and then quoting passages in an effort to "sway" others, fits this definition of proslytizing.

When members of the group repeatedly state that something is not appropriate to the purposes and methodologies of the group, and suggest other forum areas where it is appropriate, and this is ignored, then it becomes trolling. One aspect of trolling includes: "posting off-topic messages in an online community or otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion." (see wikipedia).

To show that ideas spread in a particular progression is history, requiring *evidence* demonstrating the presence of those ideas at a particular time and place and their application to the area concerned. To claim that certain ideas influenced something without any evidence supporting it is not history.

To try to sway others to believe is advocating that others also become convinced of that person's personal beliefs.
 

ravenest

I don't know what the rest of you think, but it seems to me that when someone comes on a group that was created to address a specific topic in ways that are clearly stated up-front, but that person refuses to stay within the topic and methodologies, that it is disrespectful to the group.

The original question of this thread is; " Would anyone like to share the opinions about the origin of the Arcana Tarot symbols? As these pictures do not exist in our world. " (and has gone on for 25 pages) it is pretty hard to get off topic with that! As far as methodologies are concerned one would think that after 25 pages of such a topic the moderators are not too worried?
To "advocate or promote a belief" (Oxford Dictionaries) is one form of proslytizing. As is "to try to win over" or "spread the gospel to," or to sway others to their perspective.

For instance, saying "I am swayed toward the view that Plato had a great content of ‘Egyptian’ wisdom' . . ." and then quoting passages in an effort to "sway" others, fits this definition of proslytizing.

How on earth did you come to that conclusion from what I wrote?

I didn't say I was quoting those passages from Plato to sway others to the belief that Plato had a great content of Egyptian wisdom , I quoted those passages to show similarity between what he wrote and some images in some RW Trumps.

My 'swaying' Of Plato having a great content of Egyptian wisdom was I was saying I didn't think He was the only source of that wisdom, there are many influences that came into Alexandrian syncretism, including Zoraostrian 'Magi' and basically anyone with a boat and some books that happened to sail into the harbour (at Alexandria).

Unless you are saying that I am subtly linking the two to somehow influence people who might read it and they will come to the belief that Tarot came from Ancient Egypt (which I DONT think) in a way to convert them to my belief system (which I don't have).

The point is it has been going on for 25 pages and (disrespectful or not ) the reason to make that post was, well, if it is okay to do that here then I will too, so I offered one viewpoint, to 'share an opinion' seeings as this thread is about opinion and has been for 25 pages and has NOT been moved. So be it, I bow to the moderators wisdom ... if it is moved, I bow to that too.

When members of the group repeatedly state that something is not appropriate to the purposes and methodologies of the group, and suggest other forum areas where it is appropriate, and this is ignored, then it becomes trolling.

No. members say all sorts of wacky stuff ... I often totally ignore them ... the moderators actually advise us to ignore other members that annoy us ( there is a button). When a moderator decides its trolling, then its trolling.


One aspect of trolling includes: "posting off-topic messages in an online community or otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion." (see wikipedia).

I am on topic as this discussion is about " Would anyone like to share the opinions about the origin of the Arcana Tarot symbols" If the forum is not appropriate for the topic then it isn't up to me or you to move it ... again, the moderators.

To show that ideas spread in a particular progression is history, requiring *evidence* demonstrating the presence of those ideas at a particular time and place and their application to the area concerned. To claim that certain ideas influenced something without any evidence supporting it is not history.

I understand that ... and I can post evidence that fits those parameters to show that some historians think there is a good case that Plato's wisdom had a source in Alexandian Sncretism and that had a component of Egyptian wisdom ... but THAT would be off topic in this thread and actually what YOU were saying I was trying to say, not what I was saying.

You should really read post # 245 as well.

And I will finish there as you have led me waaaaay off the topic and are 'disrupting normal on-topic discussion'.
 

Rosanne

This is fabulous and important news. Do you have a link to these Tarot cards? I've only seen pictures of Mamluk playing cards - never Tarot. Do they include all the Trumps or only a portion?

MY statement was...
because we have reasonable copies of Tarot card suits of mamluk origin painted in Italy.
Not the 22- not the Queens- 52 playing card pack.
 

Teheuti

Rosanne, I apologize. I misunderstood you and thought you meant that the suit signs came to Europe from the Mamluks via Tarot, in contrast to the fact that the Mamluk suits were probably the original version of ALL playing card suits in Europe from the mid-14th century on. I see now that you were simply ignoring their earlier influence as not relevant to the point you were making.