Do you have any real-world examples of shamanistic civilizations that qualify for being percieved as the opposite of "primitive/noble savage" ? I would be hard-pressed to find any. Most shamanistic cultures I can think of fall loosely onto a "tribal/egalitarian/nomadic/hunter-gatherer" spectrum. As soon as you start having "civilization" (as in "civitas", meaning cities, however small) with social stratification, centralized power-structures, etc, shamanism tends to get abandoned in favour of a more "organized" form of belief.
Part of the problem with shamans, and also the barbarian class, in D&D . . . is the supposed duality of primitive cultures versus civilized cultures. The idea that so-called primitives are simpler and less advanced, and that as civilization rose and spread it quite naturally replaced what came before, with the primitives, the barbarians, existing only in the margins of the world. This view of culture isn't unique to D&D, but rather D&D pulls from a long tradition in both literature and even in the social sciences of viewing cultural evolution as progressive . . . that primitives cultures naturally give way to more complex civilized ones.
Like so many entrenched ideas, this isn't supported by modern social science. Hunter-gatherer and nomadic cultures are not simpler than urban and settled cultures, they are just organized differently. Both types of cultures are equally complex in culture, social structure, religious belief, mythology, and sometimes even technology and knowledge of the world. There are modes of knowledge held by hunter-gatherers and nomads today that are more advanced that the knowledge of so-called civilization.
The barbarian class, of course, is directly inspired by Conan and other similar heroes from pulp fiction. Conan was, in the context of Robert E. Howard's stories, a barbarian from the uncivilized north. The class was later expanded to also cover barbarians inspired by real world cultures. But what is a barbarian? Barbarians were not Roman, they were the peoples of Europe who resisted and fought against the Roman Empire. They were dehumanized as simple, savage, barbaric . . . lesser, than the Romans. But those ancient "barbarian" cultures were not simple, were not more or less savage than the Romans themselves, and they were not all nomads or hunter-gatherers either. They just were opposed to Rome.
The barbarian class has continued to evolve in D&D, and now barbarians can be of any race and come from any culture, settled or nomadic. They still embody that "primitive" archetype, but have also expanded beyond it somewhat.
We can do the same with shamans. In fact, D&D has already done this in both 2nd and 4th edition (maybe 3rd too?).
Most religious specialists that social science would identify as shamanic are from hunter-gatherer or nomadic cultures, at least traditionally. But as our understanding of culture and religion grows, we see shamanic practices in "civilized" cultures, we see how the many so-called shamans world-wide differ from the limited archetype, and we also see how more "modern" practitioners aren't as different from shamans as we used to think. Plus, not only have some folks in modern Western society revived traditions of paganism and druidism, but they have also revived traditions of shamanism. And just like neo-paganism and neo-druids, neo-shamans are often more romanticized than truly connecting to an existing shamanic tradition. But these are very real religious traditions none-the-less.
In my view, D&D needs a quality core shaman class that is just as archetypal and fun to play as a druid, cleric, wizard, or warlock. And just like all of those classes don't truly model historical (or even modern) examples, the D&D shaman should honor and respect real-world shamans, but also embrace the fantastic archetype and move beyond trying to embody a real-world religious practice. D&D barbarians can come from "civilized" or "primitive" cultures, so should the D&D shaman.
For some "civilized" examples of shamans, other than modern-day Western practitioners . . . . how about the mediums of the 19th century? These European practitioners didn't call themselves shamans (not sure the term had been appropriated yet by scientists) . . . but they did act as intermediaries between the spirit world and the mortal world. Instead of "primitive" ritual tools, they used crystal balls, ouija boards, and tarot cards . . . instead of dances and chants, they used seances. How about practitioners in the West who claim they can intercede with angels (spirits of God) and/or devils (spirits of Satan) on behalf of mortals?
EDIT: Oooo, I almost forgot . . . . what about the ancient Greeks? They were civilized, no? We often view them as one of the cornerstones of Western Civilization! Greeks worshiped a pantheon of gods . . . but they were also animists. Animism is the belief that nature is filled with spirits; spirits of the land, of the waters, of the sky, of the dead, of animals . . . . it's already been pointed out that some scholars feel that Greek oracles were possibly shamanic in nature, and it's very likely that other ancient Greek religious practitioners were as well.
