caffeine writes:
Not all shamans are allowed to sit on their arses in camp while the other men go off hunting....
Starving yourself into a delirious state until you start hallucinating 'the spirit world' does not seem like the easiest way of tricking yourself to a share of the hunt.
I'm not suggesting that "real" sincere shamans don't exist. I'm suggesting that a con is
at least as plausible for the origin. Call me cynical but I think history has had more conmen than "truth-seekers" (and truth-seekers are all too susceptible to conmen).
caffeine writes:
Perhaps, once settled societies started producing enough surplus to support a priestly class, we can start talking about cons, but even there it doesn't seem necessary.
Con games aren't "necessary"
per se but they're a fact of life.
Which came first? A con to sell the Brooklyn Bridge or a real "For Sale" sign on the Brooklyn Bridge?
™ Version 4.2
(1)
