While information about the *true* nature and use of an object must be
reflected in our categories for objects.  It seems to me that their
primary purpose it to help us find things by type.  If I am looking for
game cards, I may wish to know that there are Tarot cards in the
collection.  Conversely, if I am searching for Ceremonial Artifacts, I
would definitely want Tarot cards to appear in the results of that search.
So, given the ability of our database to do so, I cross-list things like
this.  Of course this philosophy can be taken too far.  Usually, though,
it is possible to get a good cross-listing for ceremonial items by
considering 1.) their original intended use, then, if they have other
functions, 2.) their primary other function.

We collect many everyday things because of their use in ritual, and many
rituals use everyday things that are elevated to sacred status.  Where the
the line is drawn on categorization and cross-listing depends on each
museum's individual mission and collections, and on why the museum
collected the item.  In any case, listing both the ceremonial and
non-ceremonial category in Nomenclature partially makes up for the lack of
item names provided by Chenall for Ceremonial Artifacts, since then you
can use the non-ceremonial item name to refer to the piece without losing
the Ceremonial classification.

My two: 8. EXCHANGE MEDIUM: coin


--William Scott



On Thu, 22 Jan 1998, JAMES H. TICHGELAAR wrote:

> > Date sent:      Thu, 22 Jan 1998 00:22:44 -0800
> > Send reply to:  Museum discussion list <[log in to unmask]>
> > From:           Lucy Skjelstad <[log in to unmask]>
> > Subject:        Re: Tarot Cards
> > To:             [log in to unmask]
>
> >
> >[According to Webster's, Tarot cards]
> > are "a deck of 78 playing cards, with 22 of them used for fortune
> > telling and as jokers in the game of tarot"  So it would be misleading
> > to use the same term for both.
> >
> > After further consideration, based on the Webster dictionary
> > description, I'd now vote to use a Nomenclature classification of
> > Recreational Artifacts/Game and the term "deck, card" which then says
> > "use for standard playing cards.... such as bridge or pinocle"  (eg. is
> > Tarot any more non-standard than pinocle?)
> >
> >
> > Lucy Skjelstad
> >
> >
> I think Webster's is wrong here.  While Tarot cards can and are used
> for playing games, they are primarily designed for divination.  I
> think that a classification under Cerimonial Artifact is more
> appropriate for the intended use.  As far as I know, bridge players
> make no claims to see the future while playing cards, they are just
> having fun.  Tarot readers do claim that they are reading
> past/present/future events via the cards, and many of them sincerly
> believe this.  The fact that both are little paper rectangles isn't
> enough to put them in the same classification.
>
> James H Tichgelaar
> Registrar, Arkansas State University Museum
>

__________________________________________
William Philip Scott                     |
Collections Manager and Office Assistant |   "Upon closer examination I
Mathers Museum of World Cultures         |    noticed that most of the
Indiana University                       |    the people bringing me these
601 East Eighth Street                   |    questions were what we call
Bloomington, IN 47405                    |    "registrars."
Email: [log in to unmask]                |     --Marie Malaro in
                                         |       Museum Governance
------------------------------------------