Teheuti
I protest the take-over of "Historical Reserach" by those who want to make it fit their own lack of knowledge and standards of what actually consistitutes historical research. Instead, it is being taken over to serve as a soap-box for personal beliefs and philosophies about where Tarot comes from.
I appear to be the last of the historians that's left here and willing to speak up for the original intention of this section. In response to controversies in earlier forums and discussion groups, it was formed as a place where historical theories could be explored and evaluated based on empirical evidence according to standards and methodologies that are used in the academic and professional fields of history. It was meant to be separate so as not to interfere with discussions of philosophies that *may* underlie Tarot.
Theories and personal belief systems that are not subject to historical research, and psychological ponderings about archetypal symbols and unknown motivational factors in its creation could be freely discussed elsewhere on aeclectic without historians demanding evidence for how such theories are related to Tarot.
When I leave (as so many others have done), I fear that this section of the forum will be left in the hands of the equivalents of Creationists and Climate-Change-Deniers: those who insist that their beliefs and research (i.e., counting the number of generations mentioned in the Bible) should be taught AS science, but without being subject to any standards of research and evaluation.
Currently on this forum, history means anything before the present time, in a vast soup in which a focus on direct sources connected via time and place are deemed as much too limiting. (See comments on "What was Tarot before the 14th century?" - when there's not the slightest shred of evidence that Tarot existed in the 14th century - but that's seen as nitpicking on my part! - what's a century here or there?) Research refers to anything one might find anywhere that reminds one in any way of Tarot or to anything one might think up. All theories are equal (except that one's own theory is better than all the others!). To ask for empirical evidence is being impolite or even nasty.
This is why I petition that the name of this section be changed and the older, very valuable posts on Historical Research be archived, as this section is no longer held to any standards that could academically or professionally be called historical research. We fought long and hard to bring a more accurate history of Tarot to the awareness of publishers, authors and the general public. I deeply protest the idea that current attitudes here be presented to the world as the Tarot community's idea of what historical research is.
P.S. I have nothing against philosophical discussions or presentations of personal beliefs. I simply protest these being presented as 'historical research.'
I appear to be the last of the historians that's left here and willing to speak up for the original intention of this section. In response to controversies in earlier forums and discussion groups, it was formed as a place where historical theories could be explored and evaluated based on empirical evidence according to standards and methodologies that are used in the academic and professional fields of history. It was meant to be separate so as not to interfere with discussions of philosophies that *may* underlie Tarot.
Theories and personal belief systems that are not subject to historical research, and psychological ponderings about archetypal symbols and unknown motivational factors in its creation could be freely discussed elsewhere on aeclectic without historians demanding evidence for how such theories are related to Tarot.
When I leave (as so many others have done), I fear that this section of the forum will be left in the hands of the equivalents of Creationists and Climate-Change-Deniers: those who insist that their beliefs and research (i.e., counting the number of generations mentioned in the Bible) should be taught AS science, but without being subject to any standards of research and evaluation.
Currently on this forum, history means anything before the present time, in a vast soup in which a focus on direct sources connected via time and place are deemed as much too limiting. (See comments on "What was Tarot before the 14th century?" - when there's not the slightest shred of evidence that Tarot existed in the 14th century - but that's seen as nitpicking on my part! - what's a century here or there?) Research refers to anything one might find anywhere that reminds one in any way of Tarot or to anything one might think up. All theories are equal (except that one's own theory is better than all the others!). To ask for empirical evidence is being impolite or even nasty.
This is why I petition that the name of this section be changed and the older, very valuable posts on Historical Research be archived, as this section is no longer held to any standards that could academically or professionally be called historical research. We fought long and hard to bring a more accurate history of Tarot to the awareness of publishers, authors and the general public. I deeply protest the idea that current attitudes here be presented to the world as the Tarot community's idea of what historical research is.
P.S. I have nothing against philosophical discussions or presentations of personal beliefs. I simply protest these being presented as 'historical research.'