Historic Tarot : What We Do NOT Know.

From a Historic point of view there is still much we do not know about Tarot.
Please add to the list or correct misinformation.

We do not know......
The date a set of cards became Tarot.
The place of Origin i.e Milan, Florence, Ferrara, Bologna etc etc
The person or Persons who created the game.
How many cards were in the 5th suit (9/14/15/16/20/22???)
Were Trionfi and Tarrochi the same thing.
Were there woodblock Tarot cards before Hand painted ones.
Was there a set sequence in the beginning.
Were the images Astrological.
Were the images purely Christian.
.....
How's that for starters?

sometime in 2009 in another forum, doubtless made up of many here, there was a discussion of the building blocks of Tarot History. I remember it being terribly interesting. There was a great deal of erudition, humility, and steadfastness. The bullet points were debated, pondered, never actually agreed upon, because just who ordained the cabal to agree such a thing.

I think that this is a worthy goal for this forum at this time. Perhaps some lurkers will come out to play.

Don't mind me, I don't really belong here ...

CED

Well that would be nice!
Even though you are not really belonging here Conversus, how about something for the list?
~Rosanne

Why Queens were added (no queens in the Mamluk cards).

Debra said:

Why Queens were added (no queens in the Mamluk cards).

Click to expand...

Thank you Debra!
I suspect that the Mamluk cards were a reflection of a sexist society, and in the west, although at the time very patriarchal, there was an accepted dualism of male and female= King and Queen; but it could have been a mathematical idea of four courts. But the Cary Yale kind of scotchs that idea. So the reason for Queens are, I believe, not known as you ask.
~Rosanne

Right. Why four courts? Why not three or five?

Well maybe a thirteen card suit was considered bad form, The Judas suit LOL.
It seems as if the Mamluk cards had that 52 weeks, 365 days thing going on that is in the French cards we consider a normal playing card deck today. Could it be that that idea was moved away from in this game called Tarot.
~Rosanne

Or supplemented.

Well they were definitely supplemented. There is this sort of evenness about the 14 card suits- and it fits if there was a fifth suit of 14 cards. I do not think there has ever been suggested that there might have only been 13 cards as that 5th suit.
~Rosanne

Rosanne said:

Well they were definitely supplemented. There is this sort of evenness about the 14 card suits- and it fits if there was a fifth suit of 14 cards. I do not think there has ever been suggested that there might have only been 13 cards as that 5th suit.
~Rosanne

Click to expand...

There's a document in Ferrara in 1422, which sounds, as if there 13 cards were added to an already existing 4x13-deck (which would make a 5x13 deck). Others interpret the same passage as a replacement of damaged cards.
It's spoken of 5 (of 13) "figure", possibly 3 courts and Ace and 10 (often presented as banner).
http://trionfi.com/0/d/11/

Other old decks with 5 suits are known, though they are no Trionfi decks, it's possible, that a specific suit was considered then to be "trump by definition". That's also possible for 4 suits. In one of the Ingold decks it sounds, as if one suit is described as the "good suit" (possibly the trump suit).
In Germany we have a game "Herzblättchen", in which hearts is always trump.

If the trump suit has beautiful pictures (as in the Trionfi deck), or is just "made with another suit sign", doesn't change the played game.

The document is the oldest playing card note in Ferrara. In 1422 this might have been the first step in the direction of a pre-defined trump suit.