James, I appreciate what you are saying, but another thought occured to
me shortly after I sent my last opinion.  Are we seeing Tarot cards
through 1990's eyes and 1990's interpretation of use, when the original
use may have been much more a game, as indicated in Websters?  And, if
so, if the 'original intended use' of an artifact changes over time,
would it be catalogued differently depending on its date of
manufacture?  In the logic of the Nomenclature structure the answer
might be yes, yet probably most of us would opt to stay more
consistent.  I think that this is where we have to really call out,
again, the need for a supplementary subject heading system which is
based on something a little different that just 'use' (because things
can be associated in important ways without 'use' being involved).
    I do think, as collection managers, we have be careful not to let
our present day ideas and interpretation alter the way we treat and
interpret historic items. We must try to catalog an artifact according
to its historical use or meaning as closely as we can, within the
context of its temporal association, to keep the integrity of what we
present and portray as close to historical reality as possible.
Because, after all, that's what cataloguing is all about --retrieval for
later research, exhibits and interpretation.  Sometime, if you have
time, read a book by David Lowenthal, The Past Is A Foreign Country.  It
speaks eloquently to this issue.
             Lucy Skjelstad