Talk:Shaman

[Untitled]
Shamanism should not be redirected to shaman, any more than Catholocism should be redirected to priest.--NetEsq 11:37am Sep 6, 2002 (PDT)
 * I agree completely, and changed the redirect into a very brief stub at Shamanism. Hope someone can expand both these articles.
 * then perhaps shaman should be redirected to shamanism? In the same way that bisexual redirects to bisexuality... Martin
 * As long as you seem to be intrested in being silly, why not redirect pape to cahtolic -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 18:03 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)
 * Reading this article and the article at shamanism, I see a lot of duplication. If a redirect is not appropriate, perhaps you could solve this problem, and add appropriate cross-links? Martin
 * Both the articles in themselves are morasses of misconceptions. I have only just discovered their existence. I will do my best to improve them, that is the best I can promise. Fair enough? -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 19:26 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)
 * Of course. Martin

Tungur
What is "tungur"? -phma
 * An Icelandic name?
 * A North Germanic word for "tongue"?
 * A place in Baikal where earthquakes are studied?
 * A people in Sudan?
 * Found it. It's a drum used by Altaic shamans. -phma

[Untitled]
Does anybody disagree with the assertion that Eliade is the best authority on shamans and shamanism? The Shaman article starts with a very convoluted formulation that assumes that everybody knows what a "medicine man" is, and, that the understanding of "medicine man" is correct. It would be useful to distill a brief article from what Eliade has to say about this phenomenon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick0Moran (talk • contribs) 02:44, 20 December 2003‎

Problem with one para
§ One paragraph in the article says:


 * The northen hemisphere shamans (from the viewpoint of noajddes in northen Scandinavia during the 17th century) resemble very much the sophists, e.g. the call of duty, vocabolary arguing, unjustified reputation from their opponents, etc. (Source: not the ones in the reference list below.)

§ As it stands, this paragraph needs revision on several points. For one thing, its author may not intend to do so, but in effect s/he says that during the 17th century some people called noajddes had a critique of shamans, and from the noajddes point of view the shamans resemble sophists. I doubt that many people would be interested in what one ancient group thought about shamans unless they could be shown to have some special insight into the phenomenon. But the author probably means to say something to the effect that if we take the noajddes as examples or prototypes of shamans, then we will decide that shamans are like sophists because noajddes are like shamans. Then the list of things, that is apparently meant to characterize sophists, is a jumble that leaves the reader with the burden of trying to decipher what the writer meant to convey. Does it mean that sophists made prominent in their discourses a call to civic duty? "Vocabulary arguing" literally means something like (1) "arguing about vocabulary" or (2) "arguing that relies on specialized vocabulary" -- or maybe it means something else. "Unjustified reputation from their opponents" might mean that the sophists received unjustifiable characterizations (presumably of a negative nature) from their opponents. Or it might mean that the sophists were accused of giving their opponents unmerited censure. Syntactically, that is a stretch. However what I remember of the sophists was the accusation leveled against Socrates (as a supposed sophist) that he made the worse seem the better cause. Then the author gives a totally unhelpful citation to back up what s/he has said. Unless somebody can fix this paragraph so that it communicates a clear meaning, it should be deleted. P0M 04:59, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)  I don't think the article represents a picture of shamans in which shamans themself would describe it:
 * Shamans have existed in most parts of the world,
 * perhaps one should read Shaman-like figures have existed in most parts of the world but it was formally a structure only in Northen America, Northen Europe and is in Siberia. It is employed especially in Circumpolar religions, but some speculates it is derived from a proto-culture in Europe/Eurasia (such as Celtic religion.)
 * "Some shamans encourage the belief that they possess supernatural qualities that transcend human nature" and "To wit, shamans are usually credited with the ability to speak to spirits and perform feats of magic such as astral projection and healing"
 * perhaps one should read: Shamans are usually found in tribal cultures with nature religions and beliefs in /worship of/ ancestor spirits, though some persons in modern Western Cultures also consider themselves to be shamans. The shaman was (and is) usually a representat of a family tree and thus speaks for many individuals. It is the person you ask and he will give you the answer, such as what happened in Tunguska 1908. Their knowledge (or wisdom) is learned through sagas. Cultures with shamans has neither a script, but they surely uses a symbolic language such as rock-paintings or utility-tool "adornments". Shamanism argued and argues by mouth, and does not conduct warefare as what is currently known.
 * One of a shaman's main functions is to protect individuals from hostile supernatural influences.
 * hostile supernatural influences? Do a belife that the Earth is round and rotates about its own axis, and a solar system where the sun is in the middle, represents a culture which have belife in "supernatural creatures"?

P0M wrote:
 * I doubt that many people would be interested in what one ancient group thought about shamans unless they could be shown to have some special insight into the phenomenon.

I think that it is a good idea to state what the modern viewpoint tells us about the "culture collision" with Western Cultures ("christianity") and the Circumpolar Cultures (shamanism). It simply allowed courts to argue that shamans was "in contact" with devils and therefore death penalty was "justified." There is also a statement that Romans killed a group of Druids, but I don't know if this is true and leave it out.

I can't understand why people categorize shamanism with magic, sorcery and New Age!? I think that this can be mentioned (and it should surely do) but it should be pointed out that it is a reputation made by others, not the shamans themself, i.e. the Druids, Noajddes, Shamans and the Northen American shamans (do anyone have a name for them?) // Rogper 13:30, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC) 


 * Rogper, do you have anything against the use of "shaman" as a generic term for the ancient role of healer and priest? If so your use of the word is quite different from the use of the word in anthropology. If you want to remove the mainstream definition of "shaman", I suggest you quote scholars who also do so.--Wiglaf 17:46, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Wiglaf, any scholar usually note that the Tungusian shaman, called saman, usually is the model for the world's concept of shamanism, but that their culture is completely different from those others. They don't share a thing except that they have two legs and two arms, and are quite aggressive in their role. Questions? No, I have nothing against using the term "shaman" as a generetic term for the "ancient role of healer and priest". // Rogper 13:36, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC) :-)


 * Sorry for sounding rude. I just think that "shaman" is a good term for this role, and I have tried to distinguish between the original sense in the paragraph beginning with specifically and the extended generic sense in the paragraph beginning with generically.--Wiglaf 19:12, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Merge
I just reorganized this article. i added a sentence or two and reworded a couple sentences, aside from that and moving everything it still should all be here. but reading over the entry, i'm really not sure why this should be a seperate article from shamanism. although the analogy was drawn between this and redirecting pope to catholic, it really isn't the same thing at all- the shamanism entry is not about a religion, it is about shamans and what they do- their practices, techniques, roles in society, etc. Its an entry on shaman-ism, not animism, or totemism, or paganism. Much of the information here is duplicated in the shamanism entry, and when it comes to the few things that aren't, i can't find any reason they should be here as opposed to the shamanism entry. Opinions?? --Heah 06:33, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Merged with shamanism.  --Heah 07:20, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

the band.
the vast majority of people that type in "shaman" are looking for shamanism not the band; regardless, shaman (band) is already an article about that band. i'll put up a notice on the shamanism page for anyone looking for the band. --Heah 21:07, 1 May 2005 (UTC)