What a pleasure to read this thread after being away awhile.
Quite frankly, reading through the whole thread, and trying to grasp some key points or signposts in its various meanderings, I am left to wonder what the central concerns, problems, and points are.
On the one hand, there is the obvious anti-'occult' orientation of the early Dummett as especially espounded in his Game of Tarot. I honestly do not think that just because he was faced with a very particular historico-social situation, during which so few books addressed tarot from a more 'serious' historical perspective, means that he would not also now consider the importance placed on the social setting in which trump images emerged.
That was not the point of his work then, nor some of his later work - and in any case he remains one extreme (and a great grounding) from which to expand.
If the question is 'what historical evidence do we have of tarot used for divination in its earliest phases of development?' then the response is basically as provided by kwaw with the quote from tarotpedia: in essence, not much at all, and purely conjectured.
How do we 'know' it was used as a game? in a strict sense, we could say we do not 'know' - any more than we 'know' that the Earth orbits the Sun. But surely circumstantial evidence, as already pointed to by Enrique clearly shows: here is a deck that is an expanded deck seemingly derived from the Mamluk deck and to which is added a series of Trumps, that within a relatively short time results in various established written rules for play.
Quite frankly, I would have thought that written rules are not as important to show its gaming aspect as the artifact itself.
With regards to the trumps themselves, do they reflect more than simply a fifth suit that could have been represented by another item (such as shoes, perhaps!). Still, we have here a period during which miniatures were also in fashion, so why not cards incorporating something intrinsic of the period?
Does that mean they are devoid of symbolic content and meaning? No - on the contrary - they use and include all the rich glorious allegorical and symbolic content of the times. Does this therefore mean that they are intended to not be primarily used for gaming? of course not - but a game does not have to be without an internal rich backdrop. After all, even the Mamluk decks contained quotes, did they not?
What I fail to understand in this thread is what is actually being disagreed on.
On the one hand, I read it that it is possible that right from the start, 'divination' was used - and I do not see anyone disagreeing with this.
On the other, it seems, and this is the part I am unsure I have read properly, that because it can be used for divination, it was possibly designed with that in mind. If that is the suggestion, then I find that frankly out of synch. with the times at hand: it is far more likely that a game designed at the time incorporates a wealth of allegorical imagery, without intent that it be used for 'fortune-telling' - but rather used for gaming and, as the times would suggest, also allow, at leisure, reflective instruction. This does not mean that the deck as game is designed for other than deck-as-game, but rather that 14th and 15th century France and Italy had a far more integrated and rich sense for imagery than we appear to currently have.
It's a fascinating thread... but geez it's a difficult one to enter!
)
