Major mistake in "Tarot - History, symbolism and divination" by Robert M. Place

Desecrated

Major mistake in "Tarot - History, symbolism and divination" by Robert M. Place

Major mistake in "Tarot - History, symbolism and divination" by Robert M. Place

He writes

"in order to begin our understanding of the history of tarot it is useful to explore the medium in which it exists: Paper. As we will see in the next chapter eighteenth and nineteenth-century occultists popularized the notion that the tarot cards were first created in Egypt. But occultists were ignoring one of the basic physical facts about cards. Cards are made of paper and the ancient Egyptians did not have this material. "

"When one examines the nature of cards and their use in card games it is apparent the the invention of paper allowed the idea of a card to develop"

This is just wrong. Not only is it false, it's plain stupid.

The Egyptians had papyrus and this was spread to most civilizations.
An even earlier invention is clay tablets. These was also used in Greek magic and so was papyri. I'm not saying that tarot are from egypt, but they certainly had material for making cards. And so did other early civilizations before the 14 century.

But even before paper we had Parchment.
Parchment is a material made from processed animal skin and is very similar to paper.
"Writing on prepared animal skins had a long history. David Diringer noted that "the first mention of Egyptian documents written on leather goes back to the Fourth Dynasty (c. 2550–2450 BC)"

Herodotus mentions writing on skins as common in his time, the 5th century BC. And it was common throughout the entire Hellenistic period.

There is also a long tradition of religious icons on wood.

Velum also existed before paper and canvas was invented at around the same time.

--

I think the author had a brainfart.
I do agree that paper was an important invention and the movable printing press was absolutely part of printing cheap cards that could be distributed to the public. But to assume that tarot cards could not have been made before the invention of paper is a horrible argument.
 

earthair

I think occultists who use a lot of Egyptian symbols are counting on the fact that we can't prove one way or another whether the Egyptians did have tarot cards of sorts or not...but the lack of existence actually could prove that they did have paper type cards, because they would've decomposed by now?! Or maybe some secret society has them stashed away somewhere...

But knowing how much Egyptians liked trying to preserve anything and everything, and think BIG, if they had made some sort of tarot cards, I think they'd have made them on something that would stand the test of time :joke:
 

Zephyros

Well, while Place's reasoning may be wrong, what he says is correct. There is simply no basis for the Ancient Egyptian theory other than its popularity at the time. In addition, although we may take for granted how much we know about Egypt today, at the time it was a very different story. Nothing was known, the Rosetta stone hadn't been found yet and the alphabet was inscrutable.
 

Desecrated

2 really strong argument against the Egyptian theory:

A. There is absolutely no evidence for it.

B. There is strong evidence for the history of playing cards starting in China and then being exported to India and Persia.
 

Yelell

Clay tablets? You're leaving out the part in between those two quotes, where he says "IF" cards are defined as images printed or painted on paper -- paper having the durability to be shuffled and used for gameplaying. He mentions papyrus and parchment later also but believes they would not be as functional. An opinion certainly, but I wouldn't necessarily call it stupid. It's not really an explanation for the origins of the images, but more an idea about how tarot cards could have come into being as a functional game.
 

Zephyros

I think terms should be defined. If we are talking about the origins of Tarot, one should first define what constitutes Tarot. The Isis figure of the Empress has been around forever, the archetypal feminine figure. However, a statue or image of Isis or Ishtar does not constitute a Tarot image, because that becomes that through association and inclusion with other such images.
 

Teheuti

I think terms should be defined. If we are talking about the origins of Tarot, one should first define what constitutes Tarot.
This has been debated often enough and almost always comes down to 78 cards (almost always on paper/card stock) grouped as sets of: 22+4(10+4). However, another indication are the objects that are generally referred to on Aeclectic Forum under the topic Tarot.

A selection of objects or concepts with some archetypal similarities to some Tarot motifs but no direct connection to the cards is not Tarot.
 

Parzival

Major Mistake (?)

Clay tablets? You're leaving out the part in between those two quotes, where he says "IF" cards are defined as images printed or painted on paper -- paper having the durability to be shuffled and used for gameplaying. He mentions papyrus and parchment later also but believes they would not be as functional. An opinion certainly, but I wouldn't necessarily call it stupid. It's not really an explanation for the origins of the images, but more an idea about how tarot cards could have come into being as a functional game.

I think you got this right. The author contrasted papyrus scrolls and cards. Tarot is all about cards and the truths beyond the symbolic cards and would not work with scrolls. You can't shuffle and lay out a spread with a scroll. However, I do think the author might have explained himself more concretely. This subject is no easy write-about.
 

Teheuti

I do agree that paper was an important invention and the movable printing press was absolutely part of printing cheap cards that could be distributed to the public. But to assume that tarot cards could not have been made before the invention of paper is a horrible argument.

Do you mean they could have been dice or dominos and not Tarot "cards"?

Yes, cards could have been made on something other than paper and have been. There are later leather cards made by Native Americans, and ones made of silver, and earlier small clay tablets with weird figures found in Mohenjo Jaro and among the Seminoles of Florida. Furthermore, card-sized pieces of painted papyrus were sometimes glued to mummy wrappings. But they were not mass produced for gaming and they didn't consist of 78 cards of 22+4(10+4). Nor have we found anywhere else a set of the 22 images that we relate to the 22 trionfos of 15th century Northern Italy. The images are common in 14th-15th century Northern Italy (although not in the exact set, until Il Trionfos) and not elsewhere.

If the trumps were designed as a permanent trump suit added to the 52/4-card deck of playing cards, as all *evidence* leads us to believe, then the invention of paper and block printing played a huge role in Il Trionfos becoming anything other than a whimsical entertainment of a few Italian nobles who could afford hand-painted cards.

If you are naming all sets of archetypal figures in any medium, Tarot, then you are appropriating this word to suit your own purposes without any indication that those other figures have any relationship to the set of playing cards known as Tarot, other than their iconographic relatedness as found in the collective unconscious and manifesting in some form in a great many cultures.

Yes, similar archetypal figures have existed elsewhere than in cards, but not in the exact (or even near-exact) set found in Tarot.
 

The Happy Squirrel

Do you mean they could have been dice or dominos and not Tarot "cards"?

Yes, cards could have been made on something other than paper and have been. There are later leather cards made by Native Americans, and ones made of silver, and earlier small clay tablets with weird figures found in Mohenjo Jaro and among the Seminoles of Florida. Furthermore, card-sized pieces of painted papyrus were sometimes glued to mummy wrappings. But they were not mass produced for gaming and they didn't consist of 78 cards of 22+4(10+4). Nor have we found anywhere else a set of the 22 images that we relate to the 22 trionfos of 15th century Northern Italy. The images are common in 14th-15th century Northern Italy (although not in the exact set, until Il Trionfos) and not elsewhere.

If the trumps were designed as a permanent trump suit added to the 52/4-card deck of playing cards, as all *evidence* leads us to believe, then the invention of paper and block printing played a huge role in Il Trionfos becoming anything other than a whimsical entertainment of a few Italian nobles who could afford hand-painted cards.

If you are naming all sets of archetypal figures in any medium, Tarot, then you are appropriating this word to suit your own purposes without any indication that those other figures have any relationship to the set of playing cards known as Tarot, other than their iconographic relatedness as found in the collective unconscious and manifesting in some form in a great many cultures.

Yes, similar archetypal figures have existed elsewhere than in cards, but not in the exact (or even near-exact) set found in Tarot.

Bravo.