In answer to Janis' question, (and with apologies to those uninterested
for the length of this reply) the problem of classifying Tarot cards is
an interesting one, which points out some of the diffferences between
the first edition of Nomenclature, which provided a great deal of
information on the rationalle of the system so that one could solve such
problems more easily, and the Second Edition which all but removed the
information with which to sort out the more difficult decisions.
Essentially, those who explained the second edition at the first AAM
meeting after its introduction, said, 'if it isn't in here, make it fit
somehow so we won't have a lot of added terms that aren't consistent
between museums,'  and they suggested adding  an additional data field
for a 'common name' to be used locally.  (Believe it or not, I came
across my notes from that session just a few months ago.)

(I'll probably hear it big time from someone about that, and yes, I
liked the first edition better than the second, although many useful
terms were added to the second.)

At any rate, the  Nomenclature classification system is  based on 'the
original intended use of the object' and in the first edition, the
definition for Ceremonial Artifacts began:  'An artifact originally
created to be used in a ritual that is conducted in a consistent and
usually prescribed manner; "  and includes "(2) any object used in a
ceremony concerned with either personal life crises or group
crises..."    That seems to fit the Tarot cards quite well.  The second
edition's definition for the category is somewhat different, saying that
the category is for artifacts created for "...organized and sanctioned
societal activity."   In the first edition Ceremonial Artifacts were a
subset of Societal Artifacts  (which might have made the choice more
clear for the Tarot cards);  in the second edition they were changed to
be a subset of Communication Artifacts, which muddies the waters a bit,
although it can certainly be argued that most religious artifacts are,
indeed, for communication with the supernatural.  Bottom line?  I'd
classify the cards as Ceremonial Artifacts, in spite of the 'organized
and sanctioned' phrase in the 2nd Ed.definition.

Now, if you were also using a subject heading system to cross reference
artifacts by associated human activities  (original intended use is not
enough, in my estimation to make the more useful retrievals from your
collections), you might use a system such as that based on the Human
Relations Area Files (HRAF files) which are indexed by George Murdock's
Outline of Cultural Materials (published by HRAF Press), in which you'd
find a heading for 'Religious Practices' with a category 'Revelation and
Divination'  --perfect for the Tarot Cards.

Admittedly, Murdock's terms are anthropological, but once you understand
them, there is virtually a place for everything, and they easily can be
converted into terminology that is better understood by cataloguers who
are used to historical or other common terms.  Also, you can create
sub-categories that can tailor make the system to your own area.  For
instance under the broad heading 'Agriculture', the category
'Arboriculture' can be subdivided by the tree or vine crops common to
your area. (Here it's viniculture, prunes, pears, silviculture, etc.)

I'll be most interested to see the variety of solutions others have to
this problem.....fire away.

Lucy Skjelstad
Corvallis, Oregon