“The term shaman itself comes from the Evenki language in Siberia, and means “the one who knows.” Other general words for shaman, such as Finnish tietäjä, Japanese munusu, Bella Coola kusiut, Nahuatl tlamatiquetl, and Quichua yachaj, all have the same meaning.”
The same is true for other cultures around the world in the words for those who knew — seers, wise women, shaman: Veleda, Filidh, Cailleach Feasa, Haegtessa, Wicce (which referred to those who were ‘wise’) … the list goes on.
Thankfully, due to more recent integrity-centered scholarship, we’re learning more and more about the long-running and respected roles women played as shaman, wise women, healers, and spiritual leaders, by many names and titles, in a variety of cultures throughout the world.
Many of these shaman were women, and indeed in some traditions, the original shaman, seers, etc. were women, period, though we wouldn’t have known this were it not for the more recent and/or courageous scholarship — women and men who dared to deviate from the prevailing academic or scientific biases and the gatekeepers thereof.

Unfortunately, the more recent scholarship makes all too evident that there was an intentional erasure, minimizing, not-seeing, overlooking, or mocking diminishment of women’s roles and contributions among historians, archeologists, anthropologists and others — what Ms. Tedlock, a professor of Anthropology at the University of Buffalo (NY) describes as a “willful misreading of the evidence.”
Tedlock writes of a glaring example of this, in her description of the oft-quoted, oft-cited “expert” on shamanism, Mircea Eliade. She notes:
“One of the most influential writers about shamanism was Mircea Eliade, a historian of religion. His book Shamanism: Archaic Technique of Ecstasy (1964) had a worldwide perspective and was consequently widely read; its sweeping synthesis made it the major resource for studying shamanism.”
“However, there are serious limitations to Eliade’s work, among them, that he never met a living shaman and thus had to depend on published sources for his information. Even so, given the written record of women shamans in Siberia, it is surprising that nearly all of the shamans he described were men.”

“In fact, he (Eliade) went out of his way to deny shamanic status to women. He glibly referred to the Mapuche women shamans of Chile as “sorceresses,” saying they were evil persons who viciously attacked others by projecting injurious objects into their bodies.”
“The predominance of female shamans in Korea he considered as “a deterioration in traditional shamanism.””
“And he said that ancient Chinese women shamans were “possessed persons of a rudimentary type.” One of the authors he cited was Jan Jacob Marie de Groot. But de Groot, perhaps the most authoritative source on ancient Chinese religion at the time, had actually noted that women shamans predominated in early Chinese shamanism and that they were considered great healers.”

“Eliade’s dismissal of women shamans extended to Japan where he described the rituals practiced by women as merely “techniques of possession by ghosts,” making the shamans sound like spiritualists. Yet again, the primary sources he used, together with more recent information, reveal that the earliest and most powerful shamans in Japan were women.”
“Eliade’s work on shamanism was so pervasive, even though it was not accurate, because of the times in which he lived and wrote. The book was originally published in French in 1951, when the psychoanalytic movement, with its strong anti-female bias, was at its high-water mark.”
“His erasure of women from important roles was not even remarked upon for forty years.” (Barbara Tedlock, The Woman in the Shaman’s Body*)

Forty. Years.
For forty years “academics” and “scientists” (etc) just rotely cited Eliade’s work without making the rather important observations Tedlock makes (in well-researched detail) in her book.
That’s pretty unscientific, for sure, but it’s also a great example of how ingrained, internalized bias, misogyny, and privilege can make us assume rather than question.
But then, Eliade and his fellow Victorian-minded peeps were simply carrying on a willfully anti-female, anti-Feminine tradition that reached back long before they picked up the baton to carry it forward.
It’s often said that when it comes to “history,” the conquering victors write the version of it that best serves their agendas, and that includes eliminating or wiping out pre-existing traditions or “the other side” of the story that may contradict or threaten their version of history.

But as Emile Zola said, you can bury truth underground for only so long before it comes bursting back to the surface with quite a force (see the full quote in the Sophia’s Children Wisdom’s Rising – And It’s Coming Out of the Ground post below).
It also lives in our ancestral, cellular, or body memory, and calls to us all the more loudly when it’s needed most and when the prevailing “truth” is so far from the mark — is so disrespecting of and even threatening to Life — that reclaimed wisdom is a necessity for the restoration of health, wellbeing, and even survival of Life in all of its amazing expressions.
We’re at that point now.
You’ll find quite a bit on reclaiming the Feminine and ancestral wisdom topics here at Sophia’s Children and in the Sophia’s Children archives — after all, that’s been the founding and a primary purpose of the blog since its inception in 2005!
There are also some excellent posts shared by some of my fellow bloggers. Here’s one of each to start with:
Wisdom’s Rising – It’s Coming Out of the Ground (from the Sophia’s Children archives)
And my fellow blogger, Laura Bruno, shares this excellent post, Max Dashu – Restoring Women to Cultural Memory.
We are un-erasing and remembering now.
Big Love,
Jamie
Find more about Barbara Tedlock and The Woman in the Shaman’s Body here.
January 13, 2015 at 7:27 pm
Thanks so much for bringing to light Tedlock’s important work! I had not heard of her before, and I am so pleased to hear someone has launched a scholarly revision of Eliade’s deceptive work, which continues to inform certain “Sophia scholars.” Many, many thanks!
January 14, 2015 at 12:13 am
True indeed, Laura, about setting the record straight about that particular bias of Eliade’s (and, as you say, certain “Sophia scholars” who link to it. You’ll no doubt appreciate The Woman in the Shaman’s Body (Ms. Tedlock has also written other books as well). Thanks for appreciating it. 🙂 Love, Jamie
January 13, 2015 at 10:29 pm
This is really interesting and I am not surprised these women were not acknowledged in the past. Having studied and now practising Alberto Villoldo’s courses on shamanism, I am very aware of the secrets many shaman’s had to hide in order to live safely. Thank you for a great post on this subject.
karen
January 14, 2015 at 12:17 am
You’re welcome, Karen, and so true. So many risked much (or everything) to shepherd the teachings and wisdom along while remaining hidden, so we could piece it back together (and remember via analeptic or ancestral memory in some instances) or learn from those still surviving. We honor them in remembering and for those of us who are called, by continuing on in ways appropriate for now. Did you do the light body (four directions) work, or another of Alberto’s pathways? Love, Jamie
January 14, 2015 at 12:36 am
I did the Munay Ki course (nine rites) and love practising it. I can honestly say, it changed my direction and my life in so many ways. The courage of the shamans gone before us has opened many pathways to healing for us today, I agree we should honor them always. 🙂
January 14, 2015 at 12:42 am
So fabulous, Karen … we’re Munay Ki sisters then. I know what you mean – it was an incredibly powerful experience. You wrote: “The courage of the shamans gone before us has opened many pathways to healing for us today.” And so you are with your practice and your blog (and I’m sure other ways you ‘be’ too!). 🙂 Love, Jamie
January 14, 2015 at 12:48 am
Amazing, thats great Jamie and although it is a path less travelled, I am always excited to hear about like-minded souls and angels doing the same work. 🙂
January 14, 2015 at 12:56 am
True enough, Karen. I rarely come across fellow Munay Ki peeps, so it’s a pleasure. And definitely always a blessing to intersect with like-minded/hearted souls and angels doing The Work. 🙂 Have you shared blog posts about your munay ki experience? If so, do share (or point me to them and I can keep them on the reference/reblog roster!). Love, Jamie
January 14, 2015 at 1:00 am
You know, I haven’t written directly about my experience as yet, simply because I know how “out there” it seems to the average person. I should let go of my fear and step out in courage ha! Thats what Alberto will say!
January 14, 2015 at 1:28 am
I know what you mean. I might have done a general one back a few years … I’ll have to see. But I find with so much of these experiences, at least for me (a woman of the word, and a writer, too) it can be hard to bring it from that deeply sensed, experienced gnosis into words. Your sense? If you decide to venture that way, I’ll look forward to reading it. 🙂 xoxo J
January 13, 2015 at 10:41 pm
Many thanks for this important post. I must admit I grew up on Eliade (sort of…) and always quite valued his insights but nonetheless I agree the omission and disregard for women shamans is unforgivable.
Thanks for enlightening me.
Monika
January 14, 2015 at 12:19 am
You’re welcome, Monika. We all grew up to some degree on Eliade’s work (and perhaps similar others), and certainly can appreciate his power of synthesis. When I learned of the willful elimination or dismissal of so many women, though, I admit it puts into question the truthfulness of all of his work, unfortunately. I’m very grateful, though, for the work of Barbara Tedlock and others like her, men and women alike, setting the record straight!
I’m glad you enjoyed the post. Thank you for reading, and for sharing in the Great Work (and the same to Karen and Laura). Love, Jamie
January 14, 2015 at 1:34 am
hi jaime,
this is so so important for us to do. for women and men alike. a rebalancing of the scales as they were meant to be balanced in healthy and progressive societies. I’ve been noticing how severely our culture has pushed women into marginalized roles and activities. and i’ve started to ask question why. is there an easy answer? are we all partially responsible for the power shifts? are certain sexes more responsible? this is not about playing the blame game. it is about understand the origin of a problem i do not see easily corrected because we lack the proper history to understand it.
yes, it’s also important to look for solutions to these problems, but at this stage i’m filled with the question i think not enough are asking. “How did we get here in the first place?” when we know the past you mention – powerful women, female centric societies, how women were worshipped in the ancient world as vessels for creation, as spiritual beings that were revered for sacred goddess energy that involved procreation and much more, its hard to see how women’s sexuality and ability to give birth has turned us into the “weaker sex’ or the sex that needs to watch its sexual behavior.
the advent of the pill and the thousands of years old paternal idea of property ownership, farming, and labor has done women little favor …. i would start here for the answers i seek. but would be interested in hearing your thoughts beyond these aspects of where the imbalance originated.
p.s. – my focus has been predominantly on the way women are portrayed in the media (tv, news, gossip, film). the bechdel test is a good reference.
hugs,
o and om.
January 14, 2015 at 1:46 am
Hey there, Odie’s Mom. These are good questions you’re asking, and I ask them regularly too (and I’d wager that the others here and reading have as well).
And no, it’s not about the blame-game, but rather just because it needs to be asked, ‘fessed up to, explored, etc. in order to be mended or healed, yes? There’s a reason it’s called Patriarchy, and there’s a history of misogyny and violence against women, nature, the indigenous, etc. under its umbrella … whether we like it or not, whether we’d wish it so or not.
We can’t heal what isn’t acknowledged. (I’ve noticed a general tendency in the conversation (not this one here but generally) to immediately go into counter blame (one great example is the comments garnered when Arjuna Ardagh wrote a heart-felt missive about “Why It’s Wise to Worship a Woman” for Huff Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arjuna-ardagh/goddess-worship_b_660896.html).
The piece and then the comments are a good example of the immediate backlash and shut-down of real dialogue on these questions — men (not all, but a lot) taking offense and counter-blaming and sometimes rather violently denigrating women and some women falling into ingrained patterns of apology and defense of the aforementioned men, etc. You’ll see it if you read the comment threads. But I digress …
These are big questions … at least I find them huge, and so I guess I ask and ask and explore what comes up bit by bit. Maybe it’s like Rilke — ask the questions and find yourself living into the question. 🙂
But let me reflect on what you’ve posted … it’s important. Perhaps I’ll invite some of our other sisters in the blog-o-sphere to add insights, too … like an emerging conversation or dialogue.
More soon …
Love,
Jamie
January 14, 2015 at 3:48 pm
I look forward to your insights. And the sisterhood conversation forum.
Hugs,
O and om 🐱
January 14, 2015 at 3:55 pm
Thank you for your eloquent and thoughtful response.
I just had a thought. I’m going to say that a major shift in attitudes toward women happened when individual property ownership became the goal. It was no longer the village and community watching the children collectively. The burden of new offspring became sole responsibility of the male. This burden of caring for children borne to him made sex scary because it often led to another moth to feed. As technology and medicine advanced, more children lived and less work was needed ok the farm . the reality of sex leading to a loss wealth and individual ownership (power, voting, status in community) became even more certain.
Just my early two cents. More research would have to be done of course. But the western ideal of individual rights and power over community most certainly plays a massive role.
Ps. I like the rilke proverb. I’ll look into it more. Love that you always have something new to expose me to.
Hugs,
O and om 🐱
January 14, 2015 at 6:19 pm
Thank you for sharing this thought, and it makes a lot of sense that the ‘property ownership’ worldview and ‘goal’ is either a cause or a symptom of the greater shift that ‘tipped’ things. Barbara Hand Clow wrote a book called Catastrophobia, and that along with Riane Eisler’s Chalice & the Blade suggest a couple of waves that added up to a big shift in worldview and the ‘norms’ that stem from it. John Lash’s Not in His Image gives a rich synthesis of perspectives on this, too. Raven from Moss Mountain Inn suggests a couple of additional insights in her comment, too. It does seem like a cocktail of things/events/influences gathered momentum and brought a huge shift in perceptual view. I talked about it a bit with David Hillman in one of my earliest Feminine Mojo Shows as well. Bits and pieces of a puzzle that ultimately tells a story, and of course knowing even a bit about the story helps us to orient towards (and be) the medicine for now. The conversation continues … 🙂
January 14, 2015 at 2:01 pm
Having found this most excellent blog through my friend Laura Bruno, I would like to try to answer Eyes of O’s question on how we got here in a most general way, (my background is anthropology and I am a shaman) as Laura and I have been having conversations about this topic prior to her introducing me to Sophia’s Children today.
The problem is that there are many factors that spiraled to create this agenda, paganism v. Christianity was the most blatant, but all aspects of wisdom since that time have contributed their contrived pieces: history (HIS-tory), science, philopsophy, religion, anthropology, astronomy, medicine… all these fields, in fact, ALL fields, have regurgitated vast quantities of male scholars who are adept at projecting their ego-based theories and concepts very effectively. A bit of a backlash occurred during the feminist movement and some strides were made, Title 9 for one, but mostly the results allowed women to work more, study more, and be “more” but most definitely not more divine or feminine. It’s really been quite a smorgasbord of male dominance, but all that changed, astrologically speaking, with the advent of the resurgence of the Divine Feminine principle. While it may be “our turn” as the energy has shifted, it’s really a balance of energies we seek. However, the pendulum is still swinging widely, and in fact what I call The Pendulum Effect is the active principle driving it all. When the pendulum stops we will reach homeostasis, but not before.
January 14, 2015 at 6:32 pm
Welcome! I’m glad that Laura pointed the way here. Thank you for sharing your insights as well on the ‘smorgasbord’ (great word choice!). We’re all little lights in the Indra’s Net of this work. So true that when things are badly out of balance, the pendulum has to swing wildly to disrupt the status quo and create receptivity for that which helps restore wholeness and balance (very sync with the ‘system agitator’ in Natural Systems!). You also shine light on another powerful insight … that which allowed women to ‘be more’ and ‘do more’ and ‘study more’ (within the context and norms of the dominant system) and ‘be more’ “but most definitely not more divine or feminine.” There’s a powerful truth and reflection-point in that statement that I’d guess many of us resonate with or recognize. The conversation and great work continue …
January 15, 2015 at 12:41 am
hi raven moss,
thank you for responding to my questions. i do agree that the religious shifts in the last 2000 years have given rise to a patriarchal system that suppresses women, though i believe christ’s original message had nothing to do with favoring men over women.
a confluence of events, both secular and religious, has led to what we deal with today – a lack of recognition of the female masters in many arenas, and in some cases, a total erasure of their works, is one sad result.
i agree with your closing point as well. we do need a balance, and not a pendulum extreme.
hugs,
o and om.
January 14, 2015 at 3:48 pm
Reblogged this on Laura Bruno's Blog and commented:
This is too good not to share. Jamie creates a wonderful riff off my earlier Max Dashu post and introduces the scholarly work of Barbara Tedlock, Ph.D. Tedlock’s book, “The Woman in the Shaman’s Body” reveals the deliberate cover-up of women’s traditional roles as shamans around the world. At a time when “Sophianic scholars” continue to put a patriarchal spin on shamanism and Goddess traditions, I find Tedlock’s (and Jamie’s) work a welcome relief and breath of fresh air! Thanks again to Jamie for writing this post!
January 14, 2015 at 6:21 pm
Thank so much for sharing this post through your circle too, Laura, and it does sync nicely with the Max Dashu post and others we and our sisters and brothers out there have done as part of this great remembering and reclamation. I’m also very glad to spread word of Barbara Tedlock’s book and similar works as well. Love, Jamie
January 14, 2015 at 3:58 pm
Thanks to everyone here for all the thoughtful and excellent comments. I just wanted to make one encouraging observation, which is that more than half the people I know who are the most deeply devoted to a return of the Goddess/Sacred and Divine Feminine are actually men! They intuitively recognize that in allowing this polarity (or as Raven calls it swing of the pendulum) full expression, that they, too, can reclaim something the patriarchy has stolen from them. It’s about balance, honoring and deep respect. If we can call out the lies without needing to suppress “dissent,” enact vengeance, or use patriarchal tools to reclaim our heritage, then we have a very strong likelihood of succeeding where earlier movements have “Peter’d” (or “Paul’d”) out.
Love and blessings! Thanks for being such an inspiring group of beings!
January 14, 2015 at 6:13 pm
Thanks, Laura. The pendulum is definitely swinging, and definitely don’t want to have things Peter or Paul’d out. 😉 Good one; I chuckled at that. Love, Jamie
January 14, 2015 at 7:06 pm
Haha! That just came to me and made me giggle.
Lots of love and appreciation … Also, as a side note, I’ve been having a surge of Brigid energy of late — really informing a new version of a novel I had set aside in 2010, but other areas, too. Anyway, it’s been all Brigid all day, every day for weeks now. The other night, I got a hit to check/update the media links on my blog for various radio shows, and I had totally forgotten that you and I first connected for a Candlemas/Imbolc chat in 2012! Sync winks ALL over the place these days. Love, Laura
January 14, 2015 at 7:42 pm
Hey there, Laura. It made me giggle too (and I love when that happens, don’t you?), so happy to have shared it back to you. 🙂 It really is a sync-wink — and sync winks aplenty it seems. This is a good sign! And that we’d connected back in the day … at Imbolc in 2012 no less … is very auspicious. Perhaps some energy seeded then is spiraling back around, having deepened or ripened. No wonder that Brigid is calling to you … now there’s an energy and consciousness. Yum. Enjoy your conversations with Her! Love, Jamie
January 15, 2015 at 7:30 am
great information. Just writing a book that also deals with the subject, will include some of the references by Tedlock. Thank you.
January 15, 2015 at 2:52 pm
You’re most welcome; I’m happy to share word of Barbara Tedlock’s book, and others like it. You’ll find a wealth of information and references in it for your own book research. All the best with it! Jamie
January 15, 2015 at 5:17 pm
Much thanks. I am very fond of writings that present how every bias is a sign of the times. I find the article really interesting because of that, and also because the domain of woman within spirituality is still poisoned by old preconceptions that should be transformed. While general view around the sexual valued bias around spirit matters has already elevated, the consensus in scientific waters is much more of a hardliner. I do hope the work of dr. Barbara will help on that. I have also shared your article. Best with your work. Bostjan
January 15, 2015 at 10:35 pm
You’re very welcome, Bostjan, and thank you as well. I appreciate that you’ve shared your thoughts on this as well. Blessings, Jamie
January 15, 2015 at 7:32 am
Reblogged this on Arrow of awareness and commented:
An important read. In that regard I would also point a reader to the synthesis of work on shamanism by Narby and Huxley called Shamans through time that deals on changing notions about shamanism through changing eras.
January 15, 2015 at 2:51 pm
Thanks for reblogging the post and sharing one of your own valued references on the shamanic traditions! I’d also add to the ‘library list’ the two-volume An Encyclopedia of Shamanism, from one of my own teacers/mentors, Christina Pratt of The Last Mask Center (http://lastmaskcenter.org/store/). I’ll look for the one you suggest by Narby and Huxley. Thank you again for sharing word of it. Blessings, Jamie
January 15, 2015 at 1:07 pm
Wicce did not mean “wise.” More likely, it derived from a root that meant “to twist” or possibly “to weave.”
January 15, 2015 at 2:47 pm
Thanks for sharing your comment, Matthew.
Actually, the derivation and etymology of wicce/wicca is seen as somewhat less straight-forward, but if you look at various perspectives available on it a common theme is that it was used for wise women and wise men, those who could divine, etc.
However, the origin-suggestion linking to ‘weaving’ etc. is also an important clue, as weaving is a theme associated in mythology and traditions with various goddesses and ‘the fates’ who were the weavers of wyrd.
(For other fellow etymology and word-origin geeks like me, here are a few others that you’ll find in various etymology suggestion online for wicce/wicca and thus ‘witch’: Wikken and Wikkon (Ingvaeonic word) suggested from Weih (from proto-Indo-European); witan (Skeat et al); wigol (R. Luhr); weik or weg’h (Grimm); and other perspectives that seem to have relevance to the way the word was used.)
Thanks again, Matthew, for sharing the suggested derivation that resonates with you! Blessings, Jamie