Talk:Shamanism/Archive 1

Who used first time the word "shamanism"
Who?

Shamanism & Animism
Shamanism is a very broad term describing a religious phenomena which anthropologists have been observed in Siberia first. Whether shamanism is a religion or spritual practice can be disputed. Shamanism in Asian context is not a religioin. It is a spiritual practice well be absorbed into other religion such as Buddhism and Christianity too. Generally, shamanism in Asia does not have the concept of bad and good spirit, but it is more the spirit of bad fuction or good fuction depending on the situation. Spirit can become good or evil.

ross heaven
ross has been spamming all sorts of articles, i think the link he provided and his book should be removed. click on the ip that added those and you'll see what i mean. many of his additions have already been deleted. unless there is disagreement with this action or he can provide a valid defense as to why his book and site are particularly good resources worthy of note here i'm going to delete the link and the book tomorrow. it seems mostly to be new age stuff on how capitalism can benefit from rainforest retreats.Heah 21:52, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

merge
shaman should be merged here, see talk:Shaman  --Heah 06:46, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Talk page from Shaman
I have a problem with the Tobacco section and the statement that it is not psychotropic. I would urge the author to research this further. Nicotine Rustica has been known to cause changes in the consciousness of the user. Furthermore, Tobacco was not used as often for much of history therefor its effects on the user were often more dramatic. Please consider revising this. Thank you (from an Senior with a major in Anthro/Sociology)

Links:

See http://www.shamanism.org/ for one of the primary teachers in the USA.

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

What is "tungur"?
 * An Icelandic name?
 * A North Germanic word for "tongue"?
 * A place in Baikal where earthquakes are studied?
 * A people in Sudan?

-phma

Found it. It's a drum used by Altaic shamans. -phma

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. [edit]

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)

[edit]

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)

merge
i've merged in shaman. the only thing i found there not covered here is initiation and the interesting joseph campbell quote, others should double check. --Heah 07:20, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

reorganization
i've tried to reorganize the article as it was very scattered and had lots of repititions. The only thing that got cut is the section on core shamanism, which was actually longer than the article on core shamanism; it is breifly explained and linked to in the "shamanism and new age" section. References will come as soon as i get all the publishing etc info. --Heah 06:04, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes people from Western cultures claim to be shamans. This is considered offensive by many indigenous medicine men, and it is often simply not true- many of these new age, western "shamans" are little more than hucksters out for money and affirmation of self. For Indians, the danger is that their voices will be drowned out by self-styled "shamans"; in fact, Lynn Andrews has sold more books than all Indian authors put together.
 * I find the wording in this section to be very POV and is probably better left out until it can be objectified or backed up somehow. There is a lot of legitimacy to be found in contemporary (Western) shamanism if you separate the wheat from the chaff.  Furthermore, many indigenous cultures are also actually hopeful that their traditions might continue in the West, and in many cases their voices are actually amplified in Western culture.  That said, I still agree that there are probably far fewer 'legitimage' shamans and shamanistic practitioners operating in Western society.  We just need to find a better way to cover this accurately comprehensively in this article -- if it comes down to it, perhaps by showing this division of perspective.    &mdash; FJ | hello 05:17, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * I completely agree- it once said that new age shamans would rape you and steal your money, so i took that out and re-worded it a bit, but it isn't really satisfactory. I do think that it is a point that should be made, but as you say we shouldn't toss the baby out with the bath water.  The point about many indigenous people hoping that their traditions continue in the west also definetly needs to be in there.  --Heah (talk) 05:35, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Article tone
Shamans gain knowledge and power by traversing the axis mundi and bringing back knowledge from the heavens. Oftentimes the shaman has one or more familiar helping entities in the spirit world. The shaman often will enter the body of their patient to find the spirit making the patient sick In engaging in this work the shaman exposes himself to significant personal risk from the spirit world Generally, the shaman traverses the axis mundi and enters the spirit world by effecting a change of consciousness in himself All of these quotes are stated as facts, as if there were no doubt that Shamen travers the axis mundi, that they can enter bodies and that they are at risk from the spirit world. Is there any way that we can make this article factually neutral? You won't find phrases in the Pope article suggesting that the Pope actually talks to God, anything in Muhammad that states that an angel actually spoke to him, or even anything in witchcraft that states that witches can curse people. We need to make sure that we are distinguishing between beliefs (which may or may not be true) and facts (which have been shown to be true). This article is currently phrasing beliefs in the form of facts. &mdash; Asbestos | Talk 08:35, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I actually have very mixed feelings about this, but if you want to throw in some "shamans are credited with the ability to . . . " or "according to tradition . . . " or whatever that's fine. But first of all, this is from Muhammad-


 * while meditating, Muhammad had a vision of the angel Gabriel and heard a voice saying to him in rough translation "Read in the name of your Lord the Creator. He created man from something which clings. Read and your Lord is the Most Honored. He taught man with the pen; taught him all that he knew not." (See surat Al-Alaq for a fuller account.)
 * The first vision of Gabriel disturbed Muhammad, but his wife Khadijah reassured him that it was a true vision and became his first follower. She was soon followed by his ten-year-old cousin Ali ibn Abi Talib and his closest friend Abu Bakr.
 * Until his death, Muhammad received frequent revelations, although there was a relatively long gap after the first revelation. This silence worried him, until he received surat ad-Dhuha, whose words provided comfort and reassurance.
 * so it does actually say that muhammad "had a vision of an angel", "heard a voice", "received revelations".


 * secondly, what is factually neutral in this sort of situation? (and by extension, everything, but its just actually an issue here, i'm not attacking npov policy).  the NPOV here being, eg, "shamans enter trance states, often facilitated by the use of rythmic drumming or hallucinogenic compounds, where they beleive they talk to the spirits of plants".  Is it factually neutral to claim that they "beleive" they talk to plant spirits?  They certainly beleive that it is fact, and a significant population of the world beleives that this is fact.  They would say they have experienced such things, that they are facts.  If making this article from more of a npov, it would only seem proper to make sure and do the same for the other side- what we consider "fact" is also beleif.  i've never seen a molecule, have you?  yet we don't feel the need to preface that with "In the west, it is often beleived . . . "  chemical actions in the brain are no more "fact" for a shaman than plant spirits are "facts" to a western materialist.


 * Of course, this usually doesn't matter; this is just sort of an odd situation. It is their job to traverse the axis mundi; that is what they do.  They make friends with plant spirits; that is where they get their powers.  No matter how WE interpret this, it is very much fact for them.


 * I'm sure some happy medium can be found in which due respect is maintained and "In shamanic societies, it is beleived that . . . " is a preface. But this is touchier than most npov issues; it deals directly with the issues of "objectivity" that npov attempts to and normally succeeds at avoiding.  We don't know whats really going on- we would say we can locate the molecular actions with our technologies, technologies alien and practically meaningless to them; they say they can talk to plant spirits with their technologies, technologies that are very alien and practically meaningless to us.  both have long histories of use, both have many practitioners, both are utile in their own ways.  we should remember this, and remember that npov does not seek to be the "objective" point of view.  This is very important in an article such as this.   --Heah (talk) 09:27, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Your quotes from Muhammad are much better than the ones in this article. It is fine to state that he "had a vision of the angel Gabriel": the article does not state "The angel Gabriel visited him." To say that Shamen have visions is one thing, to state that they actually talk to spirits is another.
 * You discussion of the molecule is disengeneous: there is plenty of scientific evidence for the molecule, none for talking to spirits. A better parallel would have been the article on Christianity, which talks about things such as God and heaven in terms of beliefs, even though most of its adherents would probably think of them as facts.
 * Anyway, the only apparent solution is the introduction of weasel words such as "according to shamanic beliefs" and so forth. If I get a chance, I will try making the article neutral.
 * &mdash; Asbestos | Talk 10:11, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I too was concerned when I came across the phrasing for the axis mundi and other segments. I agree with Heah about the need for some preamble. It should also state that in the shamanistic world view the world is divided into three major regions, etc, etc. We could even bring in an analogy with Greek religion, which exhibits analogous (and possibly homologous) subdivisions. Haiduc 10:18, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Frankly I'm finding a lot of this article POV. While I've no problem with Christianity hatin' such as is in the history I think it only fair that there be a bit about say criticisms of the practice of shamanism such as its use of potentially dangerous substances etc. Shamnism and New Age might need a bit of a look at as well. --Darxide 11:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I've a problem with hating as a matter of course. One ought to pay close attention to the way language is used in this article. For example, the growth of Christianity in Europe is presented as destructive and Christians as "destroyers", in contrast though the growth of Buddhism in Mongolia is presented as simply a rise in "popularity." Islam and its growth at the expense of "shamanism" is strangely ignored. The bit about Gnosticism is pure ignorance and wishful thinking. The article from what I can say is POV from its start to its finish and has a desperate need of a thorough rewrite. (DBE)

Nordic Shamanism
from what i've heard and read, shamanism was historically widely practiced among the nordic peoples. of course, this is somewhat different from the shamanism practiced among siberian peoples. Gringo300 03:28, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Finnish and Sami (and perhaps Estonian) people does have a strong shamanist tradition. Not however the Germanic poeple that form the majority of the population of Nordic countries (Danes, Norwegians, Swedes etc.). See also Nordic mythology -Himasaram 21:21, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have read books about nordic myth and the books I'v read havn't used the word "shaman" but from the forms of magic it wouldn't surprize me at all. For example Odin used a chant to bring the spirit of a dead god. I don't remamber which it has been awile. and there was ALOT of magic items that cantand great power or sometimes... SPIRITS.

References and source-criticism
I am just wondering if it would possible to include more bibliographical references in the article-text in order to improve the source-critical status of the article and make it easier for the reader to do a critical and informed reading. Maybe some of the titles under the heading "Further reading" could be worked into the body of the article as references. Otherwise, very informative. --Hawol 14:25, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * This article would really benefit from a verifiability check. Jkelly 19:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Shamanic Practitioners/Medicine People and Shamans not the same thing
I believe it's important to place emphasis on the fact that Shamanism is a practice, it can be practiced by medicine people or other types of lay Shamanic practitioners and it can be practiced by Shamans. To be a Shaman is to be submissive to Spirits, the Shamanic practitioner/Medicine Person on the other hand acquires a special relationship and is usually in a position of relative control.

I submit as an example of this the Shamans of Korea who usually resist the "calling" until the point of death and who believe they would have physically died if they had not accepted the "calling" of the Spirit world. Shamanic practitioners on the other hand seem to enjoy a much more casual relationship with the Spirit world and while their ability to diagnose, cure or even cause human suffering might be on the same level as the Shaman their relationship with the Spirit world is still quiet different.

More referances would be nice, I'd like to suggest:

Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy by Mircea Eliade

Shamanism: The Spirit World of Korea by Richard W. I. Guisso

Shamans, medicine men and traditional healers: A comparative study of shamanism in Siberian Asia, Southern Africa and North America by S.A. Thorpe

The Way of the Shaman by Michael Harner ACougar 16:35, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't understand where you are drawing the distinction between "shamans" and "shamanic practitioners". None of the books you have listed would draw that distinction.  The shaman is not simply submissive to the spirits, while the "shamanic practitioner" is just friends with them.  Eliade clearly distinguishes between, say, posession by spirits and the sort of relationship the shaman has with them.
 * He also draws a line between medicine men and healers- that all shamans are medicine men, but the reverse is not the case. but if you're a medicine man and not a shaman, you aren't a "shamanic practitioner"; you aren't using the techniques of ecstasy employed by the shaman.  And this article is about shamanism, not simple healing . ..
 * --Heah (talk) 19:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * All Shamans are medicine men however not all medicine men are Shamans, either may employ techniques of ecstacy or "shamanic practice" however one has been claimed by the Spirit world (shaman) while the medicine man has not.

ACougar 19:45, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I would like to add that anthropologist Alice Kehoe has criticised Mircia Eliade's "Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy" as distorting and trivializing historic shamanic practices (as documented by anthropologists). She points out that Eliade is Not an anthropologist and doesnt specialize in anthropology. As for "The Way of the Shaman" by Michael Harner has been criticised for watering down historic shamanic practices from around the world to make it more appealing for American middle class readers. A number of anthropologist believe Harner has left serious academic anthroplogy research and now caters to New Age consumer's market (sadly).

-Bill Jul 20, 2007

shaman king
i've removed the section on Shaman King as it has its own page. perhaps a "shamanism in pop culture" section or something similar would be useful, but there isn't any reason to have so much info on the shaman king manga. --Heah (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

inquisition
Exactly what is it the Inquisition did against Shamanism? There is no support made for it on this page, nor is there any reference on the actual Inquisition page itself. I'm going the link unless someone can clarify it? 68.171.249.134 08:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Attitude towards modern shamans
The author seems to suggest that all westerners today who claim they practise shamanism abuse the term. Many may do but there also may exist people who really can connect to the spirit world, are able to heal, and and are members of western civilisation. Otherwise shamans would be present in virtually all cultures in the world except one: modern western civilisation. I suggest modifying this section. FGy

- In response. Thats because many westerners claiming to be "shamans" do not have any traceble cultural historic links to shamanism. Where as (many) other cultures do and connected to anthropological traceble linages. These cultures did not lose their practices at the advent of Christianity or Islam. Theres no huge historic gaps like with the West. Furthermore unfortunatly theres alot of phoney "shamanic" practitioners in the west whose only goal is to make money off the guilable (see: plastic shaman). I would like to also add its erroneous to automatically label someone a shaman just because they heal or connect to the spirit world. (perhaps the term "psychic" may be more appropriate). I would also like to point out its a myth that shamans only practice healing. They were also sorcerors and practiced witchcraft agaisnt wrong doers in their community or engage in tribal warfare agaisnt other shamans from different villages or hostile tribal groups. I highly recomend that you read up on some anthropological books from academic sources from universities. At least academic resources are more credible than the New Age material out there.

Bill- Jully 20, 2007

psychonaut
thoric seems to believe some of the materials i have put up at Psychonaut might have a better home here. I'm not necessarilly opposed to that, but i think that there should actually be a clear defining line between Shamanism schema, and Psychology Schema useful to the Shamanic purpose.

I also like to avoid being shunted off into closets.

If anybody else can find information which would be more appropriate here than there, maybe they could go over and do what Thoric has yet to do, which is actually tell us which particular pieces of information he (or they) thinks those are.

Thanks. 209.129.49.65 02:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC) Prometheuspan 02:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

world tree?
the following statement has gone unchallenged for months on Odin:
 * "the symbolic climbing of a "world tree" by the shaman in search of mystic knowledge is a common religious pattern in shamanism"

can somebody confirm or disconfirm this? dab (&#5839;) 12:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see the axis mundi is a related concept, so I'll rephrase it to that effect. dab (&#5839;) 12:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

"Merril-Webster"
I think Wikipedia has helped invent a ghost dictionary... cut from the article:
 * An alternate Sanskrit etymology connects the the word shamana, meaning  "the act of calming, tranquilizing, soothing or destroying" - this, through Buddhism, could have led to the formation of the modern word "shaman". (cf. Merril-Webster Sanskrit Dictionary).

there is no such thing as a "Merril-Webster Sanskrit Dictionary". I am sure this has been pulled from some dictionary, but I don't know which one. See here for an interesting exchange about this ethereal work of reference :) dab (&#5839;) 13:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * what an odd conversation ;) Heah talk 18:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't find any relation between Buddhism or Sanskrit and word Shaman. It looks like this is an original research by a Wikipedian!. Have a look at the definition of the word by Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary  Anpir 04:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Caduceus to rod of Asclepius
The article states the Caduceus as the symbol of medicine in the west this is incorrect I request change to rod of Asclepius. The two became confused in the seventh century according to the Caduceus article.

Bhuta Kola
Can Spirit worship practices in South-West coastal Indian regions be considered as Shamanism? I am not very clear about all the attributes of Shamanism. Please let me know, I'll update the article accordingly. Thank you.

Manjunatha (28 Jul 2006)

Australian aboriginal shamans
A section on aboriginal witch doctors needs to be done. Discuss.

"Aborigin men of high degree: Initiation and sorcery in the world's oldest tradition" is a reccomended source.

The phrase "aboriginal witch doctors" is derogatory and does not reflect current ethnographic accounts of Australia’s Aboriginal Peoples, nor is it commonly used by Aboriginal Peoples.--Userbdean1963, Sept 1, 2006

Splitters vs Lumpers
Though I'm glad to see the academic criticisms of using "Shaman" in such a general sense (to describe any sort of spirit-worker, of any culture, whereas the term is culturally specific), I am concerned that this generalized usage is then applied throughout most of the rest of this article. In particular, the Native American section seems to lump all, diverse N.A. cultures together. It is also cringe-worthy to see the phrase "European Shamanism" used in such a vague and generalized sense, as if there were ever one form of European shamanism that was either universal, or that all/most/many of those spiritual systems were even accurately described as "shamanism." I've only made a couple of edits, but do think we are going to have to address the uneven (and at times full of internal inconsistencies) nature of this article if we are to improve it. --Kathryn NicDhàna 00:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Native American Section
The Native American section is so inaccurate, it will have to be completely rewritten. I have flagged it, as it is full of inappropriate and inaccurate generalizations to the point of being offensive. Indigenous traditions need to be described in terms of particular cultures/Nations, not as some imagined, out-of-date fantasy of some universal Native American Religion, which did not and does not exist. --Kathryn NicDhàna 05:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The Native American section is laced with opinions. The part about the characteristaion of the 'Noble Savage' is okay, however, the part about it bieng rascist is purely opinion. Please do not put opinion in Wikipedia. It degrades the reader to add revisinist phrasing. Also, to adress the above comment, it is a middle ground. There is no "Native American" religion, but they all evolved from the same traditions (coming through the Bering straight). Just as the Europeans share similarities in philisophies and customs. To point out the differences and simmilarities is the best approach, rather than acting like they are the same or, on the other hand, have absolutley nothing in common (which is more ignorant in my view than thinking they are all the same.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.169.218 (talk) 21:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup
This article has problems making references. In particular, many of the parenthetical remarks about sources should be pushed into footnotes, so that that main text reads smoothly. External links should be moved to the bottom of the page.

The huge maps in the Siberia section seem out of place. It's unclear if all indigenous ethic groups were shamanistic, from the text. It would be helpful to have a list of shamanistic cultures of the area with links to particular articles, and descriptions of distinctive aspects of each's practices. The maps should be shrunken or pushed to subarticles. -- Beland 03:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

“Siberia” section
I began to solve the problem of Shamanism section by splitting off a subarticle Shamanistic cultures in Siberia. This should discuss the diverse shamanistic practices, cultures I suppose this should develop slowly into a large article, because Siberia is mentioned as a locus classicus of shamanism, and ethnographical records are abundant. (Even the Siberian Yupik materials are huge, thanks to the thousands of pages of many resources published by the of Academy of Sciences of the USSR, and/or written by authors Богораз, Меновщиков, Рубцова).
 * remembering the diversity
 * and mentioning common fetures where they exist.

Long references in parantheses are distracting
Solving this problem was a bit tricky, and my newest solution (using cross references instead of parantetical references) has made the reference system of the article a little complicated. If You dislike this cross-reference-like solution, You could revert it by reverting to 17:21, 24 September 2006 Urco (Talk | contribs) m (→See also), but it is not so easy anymore, because new contributions came since then.

My arguments for the newest cross-references-like solution follow below:

Page numbers are important. E.g. many sources are huge books, e.g. Hoppál's book is 250 pages, thus I think only mentioning book title is not enogh to fulfill Verifiability policy.

Citing references with using parantheses and over-use of only footnotes can have disadvantages (Citing sources).
 * can be a necessity (Citing sources)
 * and also an acepted practice (Citing sources)

The problem can be solved putting every page numbers refernece its own item in the Shamanism list, but that would require a redundance: many repeatings of the title of the same book. (At Hoppál, this would mean dozens of repeatings).

A solution by decomposition could be achieved if “double references” (cross refernces in the Notes section) could be done:
 * tags cannot be embedded in the scope of another environment. This does not work, I tried it.
 * Another method for making cross referenes is: directly adressing them, e.g. Shamanism links to the approriete item of the Notes section. This works well. So I have solved Your proposal this way.

Physis 16:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the tag, because the direct causes for it are solved, and nobody has objected my solution for two weeks.

Physis 12:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Now I began to use another solution: reference notes formatted as author's name + year, and maintaining a distinct "References" section for bibliographical details.

Physis 21:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Neoshamanism section
Hi there, I just removed a paragraph from the Neoshamanism section, as it was full of POV, original research, and was badly written. The paragraph was:
 * Sometimes, however, people from Western cultures claim to actually be shamans, often associated with either the New Age or Neopagan movements. This is considered offensive by many indigenous practitioners, who view these New Age, Western "shamans" as hucksters out for money or affirmation of self.  Many shamanistic cultures feel there is a danger that their voices will be drowned out by self-styled "shamans," citing, for example, the fact that Lynn Andrews has sold more books than all Native American authors put together. Often too, these New Age Shamans (sometimes called Plastic shamans), make up elaborate ceremonies that are often completely fraudulent (such as certain Sweat lodge ceremonies, or Chuluaqui-Quodoushka).  Others may be based on real traditional ceremonies but reproduced in a way that distorts, or commercializes, their meaning.

I have no doubt that there are sound arguments for much of this. However, this kind of language does not belong in an encyclopedia, especially unsourced.

I think that most of this section is questionable along the same lines, but the rest didn't seem to be as bad as this part. If someone feels strongly about this information being included, please find a better way to write it. Thanks, romarin [talk ]  23:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

-- Regarding References

As for references there is quite a number: Daniel C. Noel, Soul Of Shamanism: Western Fantasies, Imaginal Realities, Continuum International Publishing Group ISBN 0-8264-1081-2 Daniel Pinchbeck, Breaking Open the Head: A Psychedelic Journey into the Heart of Contemporary Shamanism. New York: Broadway Books, 2002. ISBN 0-7679-0742-6

W. Rose, "The Great Pretenders: Further Reflections on White Shamanism." in: Jaimes, M. A., ed. The State of Native America: Genocide, Colonisation and Resistance. Boston: South End; 1992: 403-421.

Andy Smith, "For All Those Who Were Indian in a Former life." in: Adams, C., ed. Ecofeminism and the Sacred. New York: Continuum; 1994: 168-171.

Robert J. Wallis, Shamans/neo-Shamans: Ecstasy, Alternative Archaeologies and Contemporary Pagans. London: Routledge, 2003. ISBN 0-415-30203-X

G. Hobson, "The Rise of the White Shaman as a New Version of Cultural Imperialism." in: Hobson, G., ed. The Remembered Earth. Albuquerque, NM: Red Earth Press; 1978: 100-108.

Philip Jenkins, Dream Catchers: How Mainstream America Discovered Native Spirituality. New York: Oxford University Press; 2004. ISBN 0-19-516115-7

Alice. B. Kehoe, "Primal Gaia: Primitivists and Plastic Medicine Men." in: Clifton, J., ed. The Invented Indian: Cultural Fictions and Government Policies. New Brunswick: Transaction; 1990: 193-209.

Alice Kehoe, Shamans and Religion: An Anthropoligical Exploration in Critical Thinking. 2000. London: Waveland Press. ISBN 1-57766-162-1

Fergus M. Bordewich, "Killing the White Man's Indian: Reinventing Native Americans at the End of the Twentieth Century"

Robert F. Berkhofer, "The White Man's Indian: Images of the American Indian from Columbus to the Present"

Peter C Rollins, "Hollywood's Indian : the portrayal of the Native American in film"

Vine Deloria, Jr., "The Pretend Indian: Images of Native Americans in the Movies"

R. Green, "The Tribe Called Wannabee." Folklore. 1988; 99(1): 30-55.

etc etc

I hope that it was useful. Bill (Feb 5, 2007)

Women and shamanism
Can someone contribute to the Women as theological figures page please. Jackiespeel 19:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Shamanism from other parts of the world
Can someone include some articles on shamanism from other parts of the world eg. Africa, Pacific/ South Pacific, Australia/New Zeland etc.

oops! -Bob Feb 8, 2007

I suppose it would be remiss to omit the !kung tribe of the kalahari desert, they are after all the most or one of the most notable sources of reference for anthropologists. The !kung are often used as a contemporary source for ancient shamanic rituals and for understanding how shamanism may have been understood by ancient tribes.

There are section headers for Africa and Pacific Region, but no information under them. Should these not be removed until there is actual information on these regions? Also, there is some, to my mind, unorthodox use of footnotes, starting with notes 1 and 2. Sklero 05:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)sklero

The reason I think it shouldnt be remove because its too easily overlooked and forgotten. Some info. should be added hopefuly soon. Bob March 17, 2007

I removed all my former unorthodox solutions for references, and replaced them with a more standard solution: reference notes formatted as author's name + year, and maintaining a distinct "References" section for bibliographical details. Physis (talk) 00:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

early origins
Robert E Ryan Phd in his book The Strong Eye of Shamanism cites evidence of cave occupation in France and elsewhere and the existence of "...what appears to be a reliquary shrine..." as good reason to posit a date of 75,000bp for evidence of shamanism. In another work worthy of consideration, The Dawn of Belief, D Bruce Dickson notes that the finding of skulls in the Chou-k'ou-tien cave in Chine is regarded as evidence of 'Paleolithic Cult of Skulls'and thus evidence of shamanic or protoshamanic ritual. These skulls are dated to some time in the lower paleolithic era thus making them 90000+ years old. With those two sources in mind I dont think we have to be shy in suggesting a date of 75000 years or more for the start of shamanism. Smileyc 13:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Shamanism & Psychology
I recently read a paper called "Shamans and Acute Schizophrenia" from 1967, written by psychologist Julian Silverman for the journal American Anthropologist, that summed up arguments relating shamanism and schizophrenia. Basically the paper identifies five stages of "onset" for both the career choice of shamanism and the condition of non-paranoid schizophrenia and draws parallels between the mechanics of both. In addition he highlights the idea of shamans functioning mostly through "lower-order referential processes," i.e. a semi-dream state, which is similar to schizophrenics isolating themselves from "reality." I can't do it right now, since I'm kinda halfway through a Hamlet critique at 2:47 AM, but if there's interest and a favorable reaction I'd be willing to put in some blurb about this in the article here. Do we think Silverman's summary, and probably other sources I could find, belongs in the article? Nietzscheanlie 06:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Drum
Someone keeps asserting that the 'drum is the most important tool of a shaman' without actually proving it or citing the source. Do so. Also, the same person fails to explain what a 'psychic,' an entirely modern and Western conceit, has to do with being a shaman. I certainly can't remember any mention in any of my classes about the drum being the 'most important tool' of a shaman across cultural boundries. Maybe a common tool, maybe an important tool, but certainly not the most important. So please, by all means, show me where this comes from. Jachra 22:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

-- I would add that I would also question the statement about the drum being .....'across cultural boundries'. In Korean shamanism its mainly the gong that is used and among Autralian aboriginals use of drums do not even exist from what I have read. Certainly not cross cultural from what I have so far researched. (not that I am bashing anyone or anything like that)

-Bill

Oct 14, 2007

Lol. This discussion makes me laugh. The title "Drum" is so simple. "Someone keeps asserting that the drum is the most important tool of a shaman." What a grandiose and extravagant claim! As if every shaman on earth cross cultural and personal taste and time, in one consensis agree that the Drum is the most important tool. I doubt it would even be in there top ten. What an absurd (albiet funny) claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.169.218 (talk) 21:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

History of Shamanism
The theory that prehistoric Europe was shamanic is just that, a theory, and not necessarily that well supported. My reference for this is: Hutton, Ronald. 2001 "Shamans: Siberian spirituality and the Western imagination." I think there should be a discussion of the fact that the accuracy of the hypothesis is disputed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.197.5.18 (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe you mean it's just a hypothesis, as you later note. Don't conflate the terms in science. Jachra (talk) 10:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup
This article really needs some cleanup but some fundamental issues of POV scope and definition have to be addressed first. For example there are some problem passages like:

"It could be said that shamans are the experts employed by modern, animists or animist communities. Shamans are, however, often organized into full-time ritual or spiritual associations, as are priests, being the unordained priests of instinct."

"Note: The Lakota tradition (which includes the Heyoka and Black Elk, mentioned above) are not really shamanic. There is a big difference between the Lakota culture and shamanic cultures. In shamanic cultures there is the use of psycho-active substances (peyote, fly agaric, psilocybin, etc.) In the Lakota culture pain is often used instead of psychoactive plants. While a Siberian shaman would use fly agaric, a Lakota medicine man would do a sun dance. The Lakota medicine people have some bias against the use of psychoactive plants."

Velps 21:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

reg Korean Shamanism "Amanita Muscaria"
Korean shamans never use psychidelics. Amanita Muscaria is even not growing in Korea at all.

Some Additions Added to 'Paraphernalia' section
Basically the following was added in this order: -Drum -Rattle -Gong -Didgeridoo & Clap Stick

Rattle Found mostly among various South American and African peoples.

Gong Often found through South East Asia, Far Eastern peoples.

Didgeridoo & Clap Stick Found mainly among the various aboriginal peoples of Australia.

I added: 'rattle', 'gong' and 'didgeridoo & clap stick'. Its not complete so be free to add additional information to it. The gong is often found in South Eastern shamanic practices like those of the Hmong, Yao and various Hill tribe peoples etc.

It is also found in Korean shamanic practices and numerous ethnic peoples in The Phillipines, Malaysia and Indonesia etc.

Bill-

Oct 14, 2007

Word wrap
Um, can we adjust the word wrap on this page? It's not printable at present.88.108.110.174 10:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think You mean the usage of "program code" formattings: it is them that do not wrap words. I have just replaced them with other formatting tools (Template:Cquote, description list, indentation). I think this solves the problem. But I am not sure whether I am justified to edit the contributions of other people on a talk page (even if this affects only formatting). Talk page guidelines seems to allow it in this case, but if the word-wrapping problem does not amount to allow modification, then of course my modification can be reverted. Physis 14:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Lead image
IMO, would make a far better lead image then the current one. livelier colours and (imo) better composition make it far more eye catching then the current one (which is quite drab and boring). Cheers. --Mad Tinman T C 13:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Aspects for choice
Also I have thought many about a good lead image, but I am not an expert, thus I cannot judge which images should be favored. Many questions arise:
 * Authenticity
 * Should old images about "authentic" shamans be preferred to more recent images about (maybe) revitalized shamans? For example, should the Yupik, "Goldes", Altai Kizhi be preferred to the Amazonian, Kyzyl one?


 * Verifiability
 * Should verifiable images (checkable in the books of the notable academic researchers) be preferred to less known images? For example, should the Altai Kizhi / Khakas (Mihály Hoppál 2005: 77) and the Yupik (Ann Fienup-Riordan 1994: 206) shaman images (both available in academic books) be preferred to ones harder to verify?


 * Classical?
 * Should "classical" examples (in any) be preferred? Should some Siberian examples be preferred? The "Goldes" shaman image seems to illustrate well the "classical" paraphernalia (drum, dress, headdress).

Maybe all such questions could be solved at once with the "tableau" idea. The lead image of article Woman raised also many questions. Now, its lead image is an abstract female sign, this idea has no analogy here. But in a former version, the lead image was a tableau composed of the many variants of the dicusssed topic.

Because shamanism seems to be a collective term, many different variants grouped together based on some similarities; thus, the tableau solution seems to fit here well. (Or, if it is hard to GIMP images together to form a single tableau, then a similar effect can be achieved if the lead contains several images of the above ones, not just one of them).

Physis (talk) 00:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't say I'm that big a fan of the tableau idea, I think it wouldn't work well here (given the pictures.). Personally, I figure that the image which is the most catchy to the eye should be in the lead. Given that I think they all share the same encyclopaedic value, I vote on my previous idea since I find that it's lively-ness will help attract people to the article and gather interest. --Mad Tinman T C 18:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Scores

I tried to "score" the images according to the three aspect above. My conjectures are:

Summary

In summary, my conjectures: I conjecture high score for Goldes, Yup'ik, Altai Kizhi/ Khakas images, but low to undetailed, hard-to-verify images.

Non-Siberian or non-Arctic examples must be examined on a case base (in "classicalness" aspect): shamans of Tukano people (Amazonia) would be probably acceptable (in-depth fieldwork by Reichel-Dolmatoff: 1997), but e.g. African examples should be examined carefully (because most examples are rather mediums than shamans, but e.g. Bushman examples would be welcome per Vitebsky 1996: 50–51). As for our Amazonian image, the "score" is spoiled by lack of details (in the "verifiability" aspect).

References
 * The title means “The belief system of Hungarians when they entered the Pannonian Basin, and their shamanism”.
 * Translation of the original:
 * The title means “The belief system of Hungarians when they entered the Pannonian Basin, and their shamanism”.
 * Translation of the original:

Physis (talk) 01:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Tableau solutions


My first trial to make a tableau. I admit my GIMP skill is not as professional as that of the author of the (originally inspiring) woman tableau (the lead image of a former version of Woman article), but it still presents the essence: shamanism is not a homogeneous, but rather a diverse phenomenon.

In the choice of the "member images", my main motivation was to maximize the "scores" according to the aspects explained above in  (authenticity, verifiability, classicalness).

Physis (talk) 23:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

wow. Impressive! I disliked the idea, but damn, I like that image. My only problem with it is that the colour image contrasts with the BW ones a tad too much, would rather it be a BW image instead but I can live with it. I say we use that tableau as the lead image. cheers. --Mad Tinman T C 19:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC) PS: Well done!

Dear Mad Tinman,

Thank You very much for Your reassuring words.

I have reduced the saturation to zero with GIMP, thus I have created an entirely black-and-whiter version. Now both versions are uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. I insert it here (on this talk page), so that it can be compared, which looks better.

Meanwhile, I am thinking about the amount which would justify a tableau-like solution, and possible counterarguments that came into my mind, I write them below.

Best wishes, and much joy in Wikipedia,

Physis (talk) 02:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Definition
I am thinking much about the amount whether the tableau idea is justified. Dogs have many variants as well. Cats have many variants as well. Cars… etc. It would be unnecessary to give a tableau led for these articles, although they are diverse as well.

Maybe the difference lies in that that dogs, cats, cars have a natural definition, thus it is unnecessary to overemphasize their diversity. It suffices to illustrate a (reasonable) example in the lead image. But there are concepts which simply do not have definition. E.g. "life" (of course there are good approaching). Really, it seems to have some sense to give a tableau-like lead image in "Life" article (at least, more sense than the same for "dog", "cat" etc. articles).

As for shamanism: I have just conjectures. Hoppál 2005 emphasizes its diversity very much. Vitebsky 1996: 50–51 (“other parts of the world”) seems for me to approach it as a system of motifs: there are cultures presenting several motifs which can be compared to shamanistic motifs (Bushmen have a belief of soul travel to the sky, Australian Aboriginal specialists have beliefs about initiatory dismemberments), thus, there are blurred cases. Medium-like specialists of Africa are usually not considered as shamans (Eliade regarded that shamans usually don't become a mere tool of spirits, they retain some control even in trance). Narby & Huxley seems to refine this distinction, mentioning a continuum.

Thus, I conjecture that a "natural" definition is lacking (unlike for "cat", "dog", "car"), thus, maybe a tableau-like illustration is somewhat more justified. If this does not amount to choose a tableau for lead image, than the tableau can be used in one of the sections describing the diversity of shamanism (Shamanism" introduction, Shamanism), and the lead image can be any of the verifiable images (possibly reaching high scores also in other aspects). Altai Kizhi / Khakas shaman woman is even colorful, Yup'ik shaman is detailed (place, time, ethnicity are all known). "Goldes shaman" seems to be part of a Nanai ethnographic images series.

Physis (talk) 02:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I was randomly surfing today and I came across Animal. It seems that anything without a strict, easily achievable definition is either abstractly defined ( such as Woman ) or through a tableau ( such as Animal ). Since the first cannot be applied, let's go forth with the tableau as the lead. Will you place it there, or should I ? Cheers. PS: Thanks XD. Best of luck on wikipedia too and keep up the fantastic work. --Mad Tinman T C 22:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, Fungi has more of the same in what comes to tableau's. Cheers. --Mad Tinman T C 22:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Insertion process, new place of the old lead image
I did not want that the old lead image (Kyzyl shaman) disappears from the article, thus, I looked for a section where it can fit as a section image. The lack of details known about the image was a problem. Among the few certain things: the image is rather recent. Thus, I tried to write a section about tradition-preserving and revitalization efforts, and I put the Kzyzl shaman image there. Later (= just now) I have found an image in Hoppál 2005: 117 that looks similar. If this similarity proves to be real, than probably our Kyzyl shaman image illustrates a Tuvan shaman, possibly member of a revitalization organization called "Düngür" (= "shaman drum"), run in the Tuvan capital Kyzyl. I have inserted in also into Tuvan people, because the similarity seems to be real (headdress: feathers, hanging pearls; tools on the table: candle, [oil] lamp, stick). Physis (talk) 01:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I like it. Did some random text edits to the text to make it sound better (hope you don't mind.) I was thinking if you have the time, we could attempt to rewrite this article (or just clean it up) as it seems a tad substandard in places. Cheers. --Mad Tinman T C 18:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Mad Tinman,

Thank You for Your work, and also for the message. I am glad to see the copyedited version. Your copyediting also reveals, that in some cases, I used ambiguous phrases, these appear in the copyedited version as sentences that originally were intended to convey another meaning. I list those copyedit changes that reveal my ambiguous phrases, and propose a more unambiguous version:
 * "folklore texts present a deterioration process" $$\longrightarrow$$ "folklore texts deteriorate"
 * I meant that there is a tale that narrates directly about the wonderful capabilities of shamans of ancient times, and the shameful weakness of recent shamans. Thus, the topic of the tale itself talks about deterioration. The tale itself is not harmed. Thus, I propose something like "Moreover, even some folklore texts narrate about a deterioration process"


 * "persons who used to be protagonists of shamanistic beliefs and practices of the community" $$\longrightarrow$$ "people who used to be protagonists of shamanistic communities ceased to be so"
 * I would like to emphasize that in some hunter-gatherer societies, shamans are not always so much differentiated from the laic peoples. The beliefs, myths etc. are known also by "laic" peoples, laic may experience even some hallucinations/reveries (Merkur 1985).
 * Although Vitebsky does not exclude the possibility that, in the deep past, there might have existed "pure" shamanistic communities, but we have almost no traces about such ones, if any existed at all. As for recorded times, shaman"ism" is something that is fragmented. That is why I try to avoid saying "shamanistic community/religion/society", and restrict my self to talk about "shamans" (figures filling in characteristic functions in the life of the community), and about "shamanistic motifs/practices"
 * In summary,I propose something like "former shamans ceased to fill the functions in the community they used to"


 * "In most affected areas, shamanistic practices ceased to exist, authentic shamans died, beliefs are no more living" $$\longrightarrow$$ "In most affected areas, shamanistic practices ceased to exist, with authentic shamans died and their beliefs following"
 * I would emphasize that shamans are not always the only and monopolized knowers of the beliefs of the community: moreover, the shaman has to accomodate to the "grammar" of the belief system of the "surrounding" community, must use the [already existing] symbolics and motifs, otherwise he/she will not be understood (Hoppál 2005: 25–26). Although, on the other side, the personal experiences (the way the shaman experienced his/her own initiatory shamanic illness, the challenges for acquisition of each his/her single helping spirit) are probably things that are known only by him/her. Some details can be interpreted only by knowing the family life of the shaman (Hoppál 2005: 224). I propose "In most affected areas, shamanistic practices ceased to exist, with authentic shamans died and their personal experiences following, the other people of the community remembering the associated beliefs and practices became old or died, many folklore memories (songs, texts) went forgotten"

Thus, thank You also for pointing out the things I wrote in an ambiguous way, failing to emphasize the intended motivation.

One paragraph of the section is not written by me Today, shamanism survives primarily among indigenous peoples. Shamanic practices continue today in the tundras, jungles, deserts, and other rural areas, and even in cities, towns, suburbs, and shantytowns all over the world. This is especially true for Africa and South America, where "mestizo shamanism" is widespread. but I left it intact, I lack the knowledge to modify it.

Maybe all this illustrates also why I do not dare to cleanup or rewrite yet the parts other people have written in the article: there are many details and I lack both deeper understanding and good overview of the topic.

Best wishes,

Physis (talk) 22:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I have applied the above-proposed changes in an extended version, exemplified with concrete cultures and a folklore text. Physis (talk) 00:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

African shamanism
Might this section be helped by the inclusion of information about the Babongo people, Mitsogo people, and Fang people of Africa who practice Bwiti and their use of ibogaine? JRDarby (talk) 02:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Pakistani Shamanism
In the Northern Areas of Pakistanmostly in Hunza Shamans perform or act totaly different than others in the World. Shaman mostly provide their services to homes and to public, If someone has a problem at home they call a Shaman to recover the truth or kill the evil or help them out of the on going problem, A Shaman eates a plant (gal) or (sanoobar in urdu) and gets antoxicated and calls his holly spiritts and tells the story to homeowner or recovers the evil and takes it away from the home,

When a Shaman has to perform in public or if he has to predict the future of the state or area he dances on a special music rythm called "bitan e hareep" in Brushaski, while on the other hand some people cut a goat and once they cut its off the Shaman takes the head while its bleeding and drinks the blood and calls "mamazaro" the fairies and predicts the future. sajjad hyder 5.27 am Pakistan Time —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sajjadhunzai (talk • contribs) 22:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

External Link to the Society for Shamanic Practitioners
Under External links at the bottom of the Shamanism page, please link to: http://www.shamansociety.org/. I would do it myself, but I am a newly registered wikipedia user. Pidcockw (talk) 01:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Ecological Aspect
The whole first part about the ecological aspect of shamanism doesn't have a single reference.

While it seems like this should be how it works, this isn't scientific unless there's some form of citation. For ages, people considered to be from primitive cultures have been told that they live in harmony with the earth. I've observed the contrary personally, where an African shamanistic tribe's former living site still shows the marks of over-grazing and deforestation for firewood, almost a thousand years after the site has been abandoned.

Unless there was some study where a shaman was asked why he restricted hunting and fishing, and his reasons were then verified by checking the ecology, this section is unfounded. A shaman is by definition not a scientist, so he can't be expected to make such conclusions. We can accept his indigenous knowledge in this regard if he demonstrates it, but I have never seen evidence of this, so I'd like to see the citation in this one please. --Squiose (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have thought of three improvements:
 * The explanations can be extended and verbatim quotations can be presented. The section is based on
 * Although I cannot check personally the fieldwork done by Gerardo Reichel-Dolmatoff, but there is a possibility to compare his work with other fieldworks done among Tukano people. I think of the books of an author pair Hugh-Jones. (It can be a problem that the author pair had already to face with deteriorating of traditional culture. I have not read these two books yet, just seen a mentioning about them (and a very positive critic) by Edmund Leach (in his book ).
 * I admit, at least one critic should be added. I think of The Golden Age That Never Was thought of Jared Diamond.
 * I admit, at least one critic should be added. I think of The Golden Age That Never Was thought of Jared Diamond.
 * I admit, at least one critic should be added. I think of The Golden Age That Never Was thought of Jared Diamond.


 * I am interested in the example You wrote about. Can You give some details? Now I think of that
 * what You write suggests that they were not a hunter-gatherer people.
 * If this is an African example, it can be debated that it can be termed correctly as "shamanistic". Mediums (incapable of control over their spirits, and lacking soul travel of their own) are in generally not termed as "shaman"s in the literature (although Huxley & Narby seems to challenge this distinction as definition of shamanism). Till now, I found that in Africa, it is Bushmen who are mentioned as an example having some similarities to shamanism (travel of the soul, maintaining control over spirits). Your example seems to be rather a pastoralist example (I admit, also Bushmen have pastoralist language relatives: also Hottentots belong to Khoisan, and anyway, there can be other cultures in Africa that can be termed as "shamanistic" after careful examination).


 * You mentioned a shaman is not a scientist. I suppose (from Gerardo Reichel-Dolmatoff's book) he simply uses his phronesis, establishes practical rules (restricts exploitation if it seems that searching of resource begins to require longer and longer times), and there are patterns of restrictions embedded in the tradition. Gerardo Reichel-Dolmatoff's example, the association of hunting seasons of various species to the visibility of their corresponding constellations, surely enables even an oral culture to manage a seasonal pattern of arranging restrictions and exploitation. The ways hunter-gather peoples mimic a written calendar are marvelous: clever associations of signs (appearance or disappearance of various species, constellations etc.) to seasons, see examples in Elkin, Adolphus Peter The Australian Aborigines, but also Siberian Yupik month names are referring to clues of natural phenomena.


 * This ecologist-aspect of shaman seems to be mentioned also by other authors (e.g. Hoppál, Mihály: Nature worship in Siberian shamanism) but I admit the given details are not large enough to explain them in a thoroughly convincing manner. Thus Gerardo Reichel-Dolmatoff remains my primary reference, and Jared Diamond seems to be a primary critic. I feel that Diamond's several examples are not hunter-gatherers, and the hunter-gatherers he mentions are arriving in a new territory (invasion of man into the virgin Americas through the Bering Strait). I suspect hunter-gatherers with an established local knowledge and presence have time to work out practical rules (possibly embedded in the belief system) to restrict exploitation. Maybe Marshall Sahlin's Stone Age Economics will be a good source for that, but I have read it only ten years ago, I must re-read it.


 * Although it is indeed an interesting question how the shaman gets his knowledge (and what kind of knowledge he has), but it is no less important question how he enforces the restrictions. Lack of knowledge is not the only cause of ecological disasters: as we know from the game theory, people are not immune to social traps automatically. Examples like prisoner's dilemma, and tragedy of commons reveal that people can cause disasters even if everybody knows exactly that his deed is not good. The shaman's achievement is not only that he foresees depletion of resources (sometimes this may be rather evident), the main point is that he is able to make people change the behavior. The mythical belief that "overhunting may cause illness for the hunter in a magical way" may be able to enforce some coordinated self-restriction even in societies without state and central power.


 * I admit that Reichel-Dolmatoff is not an ecologist/biologist himself, he is an anthropologist, but he has done thorough fieldwork, and he has proposed the collaboration of biologists and anthropologists :
 * Up to this point, I have been writing this article as a humanist, as an intellectual, as an anthropologist who is profoundly concerned about the future of the Indians and their natural environment. But now I shall begin to write as a rationalist too: as a person who is acutely aware of the realities of our present times, and who knows that the future lies in the hands of the intelligentsia, of the technologists and bureaucrats. It is they who have the power, and according to them the Indians are primitives who have to be integrated; according to them, nature is something that has to he exploited for the benefit of man.

We may know that we need the Indians; we may know that the ruthless exploitation of natural resources has limits; but the leading intelligentsia and their development agencies recognise no limits to their all-embracing technology. We have to be realistic, and accept the fact that the Indian world is on the wane. The Amazon basin and many, many other, formerly remote, regions of the Third World are being opened to outside influences and to technological development. In some regions this process will be slower and less turbulent than in others; some aboriginal societies will he able to re-adapt, but others will become profoundly modified, and some will perish altogether, biologically, culturally, linguistically. As anthropologists and biologists, we know only too well that these changes are part of the historical scheme of things.

These are disturbing thoughts, to say the least, and I wish I could be more positive when thinking of the future of rainforest Indians and aboriginal peoples in general. But in fifty years, I have seen too many traditions being lost; I have seen entire tribes disappear; I have seen too much misery among gentle, helpless people.

Although I know that the Indians' world is on the wane, I believe that this knowledge does not exempt us from certain obligations. So, here, I shall attempt to suggest a few approaches to these problems; I shall try to make an effort to envisage a better future for the Indians, by suggesting a few personal ideas.

In the first place, I think we should make a combined effort to study the Indians' knowledge of their biotype, taking into account not only our, but above all their, concepts of ecosystems. Every square kilometre of forest contains a library of important biological, cultural and psychological information, and if we study it in the company of the Indians our insights in all these fields will be enormously enriched. The death of an old Indian who never had the chance to share with us his knowledge of the forest and the river is the equivalent of a whole library disappearing. If we undertake this study alone, we will get a mere inventory but if we work together with the Indians our insights will be greatly enriched by a kind of knowledge which, at present, still lies beyond our experience. For 500 years we have witnessed and played along with, the destruction of the Indians; now we are witnessing the destruction of the natural habitat. What are we waiting for?

There can also be no doubt that as anthropologists, biologists and ecologists we possess an enormous amount of information, or practical field experience, and of the many forms of human vulnerability and of the destruction of the natural environment. By transforming this information into practical knowledge, in a manner that would make it understandable and convincing to national leaders and planning agencies, we can influence the process of decision-making; we can convince those in power of the biological and social necessity to conserve these lands; and we can convince them of the dignity and value of our Indian societies.

It is not sufficient to say that what we owe to the Indians is potatoes, maize and quinine. It is not sufficient to retell their myths and tales in florid Portuguese or Spanish or to stage their dances in a pseudo-Indian setting on television. What we must show is the Indian's philosophy of life, their cosmogonic and cosmological schemes, their ethical and aesthetical attitudes. What we must show is their courage of choice, their option of other ways of life, different from ours; the courage and genius of having built their societies, their cultures based upon an astonishing combination of realism and imagery.


 * Physis (talk) 12:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Your questions need my careful re-reading literature, and I have found also new ones. It would be worth composing them together with mentioning (and detailing) critics as well. In short, this means writing a standalone new article (to which a template may lead the reader from Shamanism). I began to write this (as a subpage on my user space), it is still in an embryonic stage: it restrict it self to listing Your questions, writing some hints for resolving them or further work, and collecting the concerned literature. You can see it on User:Physis/Hunter-gatherer cultures and ecology, but it is immature yet. Best wishes, Physis (talk) 11:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Cherokee Shaman
The Cherokee Shaman are well documented by anthropologist James Mooney. The Cherokee Nation is very open about it's views on Shaman. However, the reference here under "Decline and revitalization" to Meta Tanay and the man called Rolling Thunder is exactly what the Cherokee have a problem with, as stated in the follow-on statement and reference by Richard Allen of the Cherokee Nation. I believe the link to the Meta Tanay website should be removed for that reason.Odestiny (talk) 03:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Since it has been over 30 days and no disagreement, I am removing the link to Meta Tanay based on the Cherokee Nation's comments regarding people outside the Nation referring to themselves as Shaman. In addition, I can find no proof that "Rolling Thunder" is Cherokee. Even if the link were to remain, his enrollment in one of the federally recognized Cherokee tribes needs to be verified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Odestiny (talk • contribs) 18:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Shaman vs Shamans
I read a self-contradiction in this article's ethymology section. It starts off with noting that the plural for shaman is either shaman or shamans. Shaman, (|ˈshämən; ˈshā-|) noun (pl. -man(s)) Then is says: In any case, the proper plural form of the word is "shaman" and not "shamans" or "shamen", as it is unrelated to the English word "man". And it continues with: Shamans (in all cultures that are recorded as having shamans), Which postition is right? --Gauwain (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

To reply to Gauwain: none of respectable English dictionaries I have checked (Merriam Webster, Random House, Oxford English Dictionary, Longman etc) do not recognize "shaman" as a plural form of the word. In multiple usage examples found in the Oxford English Dictionary, the plural form is always "shamans" or, in one case, "shamanes." I blame Blizzard Enterntaiment for the recent spread of this misconception: in their cult game World of Warcraft they consistently use "shaman" as the plural form of the word. However, I have never seen any academic source use it this way.85.141.88.97 (talk) 19:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The statement regarding the plural of "shaman" needs a correction.
Right now, the article says: In any case, the proper plural form of the word is "shaman" and not "shamans" or "shamen", as it is unrelated to the English word "man"

It obviously true that the word is not related in any way to Enlish "man", and therefore, "shamen" is incorrect. However, that doesn't prove that the plural of "shaman" is "shaman" rather then "shamans." Actually, most of loan words in English (outside of a sizeable group of Latin borrowings) form their plural by attaching -s or -es, regardless of what their plural forms were in the source language. Exceptions are rare and far between, and I have not seen any evidence showing that the word "shaman" should be treated as such an exception.

The following dictionaries do not recognize "shaman" as a plural form of "shaman": Oxford English Dictionary; Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary; The American Heritage Dictionary; Merriam-Webster's Unabridged Dictionary; Collins Cobuild; Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. And none of lexicographical and/or academic sources I have been able to consult support "shaman" as an alternative (let alone the only possible) plural form of "shaman." The form "shamans", on the other hand, is used by many, many authors, e.g.:

S. W. Williams ''Middle Kingdom II. xviii.'' 258 The ritual of the Shamans_has been translated by Neumann, a German sinologue. (1848)

Frazer Golden Bough I. i. 48 In 1814, a pestilence having broken out among the reindeer of the Chukch, the Shamans declared that the beloved chief Koch must be sacrificed. (1890)

Harper's Monthly Mag. Nov. 569/2 Mr. Martin questions whether the labours of the Shamans and witch doctors in creating the perfect _*father image' have not been a little overdone. (1937)

Caroline Humphrey, Urgunge Onon Shamans and Elders: Experience, Knowledge and Power Among the Daur Mongols (Oxford Studies in Social & Cultural Anthropology) (1996, Clarendon Press).

So, it apprears that "shamans" is, at the very least, the preferred (if not the only correct) plural form of "shaman" in English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valerisivokon (talk • contribs) 10:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)