Why do scholars disagree about using the term shamanism for religious traditions outside northern Asia?

Scholars disagree on applying the term shamanism to religious traditions outside of northern Asia primarily due to debates over whether typological similarities—such as the use of ecstatic or trance states—justify classifying diverse global phenomena under a single label.12

In its strictest sense, the term is derived from the Manchu-Tungus word šaman and refers specifically to the religious systems of northern Asia and the Ural-Altaic peoples. Critics of a broader application argue that:2

• Genetic vs. Typological Connection: Apparent structural similarities between practices in widely separated regions do not necessarily prove a common historical or genetic origin.1
• Systematic Integrity: For many scholars, shamanism should be reserved for a precise, well-defined pattern of cultural phenomena that forms a concrete, systematic whole within a specific territory.1
• Defining Essence: Because trance and psychosomatic phenomena can occur in many contexts, some argue the essence of shamanism lies not in the general experience of ecstasy, but in specific, localized actions, objects, and notions connected to those states.2