foolish
I not aware of anyone having any major problems with primary source issues such as when a deck of cards were ordered, etc. It seems that the history section is doing a great job with that area of research. The difficulties come up in discussions about the meanings of the cards - which is really where the bulk of interest lies with most tarot enthusiasts. And the problem is that, when it comes to deciphering the meanings of the cards, there doesn't appear to be any primary sources (unless I missed something). No one, to my knowledge, has said, "I have made a deck of tarot cards, and this is what they mean."There's a big difference between primary sources and secondary sources. The examples you give above are all secondary sources and therefore liable to distortion. Also, it is true that facts gathered by white colonialists will probably be missing facts known to native peoples.
The closest thing I've seen to that was the translation of an old Italian text which Ross shared with us last year. But even in that short document, the author makes a point to disclose that fact that he is not an authority in this area. The text remains in the realm of secondary evidence. It is one man's opinion. And only that. And if we are to believe his interpetation, we would be forced to accept the fact that (if I am remembering correctly) the Bateleur is some dude hanging out in front of a local pub. (Although this seems like a fanciful interpretation, it does point to an important peice of information - that many of the cards may in fact have been used to relate local information, and not just used as examples of the larger iconography which these images may reflect.)
So, by your own methodology, this type of evidence can be subject to distortion, and should be taken within its own context - a point of view from what appears to be an orthodox Catholic. And by your own analysis, the "facts" that this Christian may have in his brain may not include the facts that another person, say a heretic Christian, would have in seeing the exact same images. It is therefore, incomplete.
The first thing to come to terms with in gathering information about the cards by looking at similar images that appear at the same location and time is the fact that these images did not have only one use. In my particular field of interest, for example, I have dedicated half of the book I wrote to discovering the way these images were used, and explaining how they could just have easily reflected the ideas of heretics of the time as they could traditional orthodox themes, based on similar imagery. Which one you want to accept is up to you. But the fact remains that there is no ONE way of looking at it - although the idea proposed by this history section often suggests differently.Regarding images - it's not just about 'deciphering' them. Rather, one gathers what is known about closely similar images that appear at the same location and time, and then evaluates the relevancy and period perspective based on a number of factors.
I think this would be a great idea. All those people who are interested in these types of discussions could participate in a hassle-free environment. The rules could also include keeping all comments within a civil tone, and refraining from personal attacks or disparaging remarks - in other words, communicating like a mature human being. They could also include the guideline that all ideas would be better accepted if accompanied by rational statements and reasonable arguments. My feeling is that if such a forum was created, you would soon be left with a very short list of core members in the AT history section. But the new forum could possibly refer to the history section for information relating to primary source questions.I agree completely that all the people with ideas and theories that are not based on primary source material should have a place to present and talk about their ideas. You could ask the forum owner to institute a new section called whatever - perhaps "Theories, Ideas & Speculations." One of the rules of that section can be that no primary source evidence is necessary.
Of course you have the right to set up your own rules for consideration of posts. It's your house, so to speak. And you can treat your "guests" any way you want.Each section of the tarotforum has its own 'rules.'
And you also have the right to set up your own rules for conduct - if you so desire. I find it interesting that you failed to respond to the other main point of my comments which has to do with a seemingly ongoing problem with the abusive nature of some of your friends in this history section. I've only been a member for a short time now, but I've already been contacted numerous times by PM regarding the difficulties some people are having with the derisive comments coming from core history members. If you take into account the principles of customer service departments that have to do with complaints, you should know that for every one complaint being registered, there are most likely dozens of others which never get reported. So, if it means anything to you, you might use some of your tenure and influence to clean up the reputation being created here.
For someone who seems to be so intent on creating high standards of methodology, it seems odd that you would condone and even tollerate such behavior. As far as peer review goes, I can't see how anyone could consider a "review" of your peers as valid when you resort to ad hominem remarks and other non-professional tactics. How can anyone really take you guys seriously when you've got people jumping around the internet resorting to name-calling and other immature behavior?
It's your game - do what you will.