Editing Bloodletting (section)

==Cross-cultural bloodletting==
Therapeutic uses of bloodletting were reported in 60 distinct cultures/ethnic groups in the [[Human Relations Area Files|HRAF]] database, present in all inhabited continents. Bloodletting has also been reported in 15 of the 60 cultures in the [https://hraf.yale.edu/resources/reference/probability-sample-files-psf/ probability sample files (PSF)] list.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal |last1=Miton |first1=Helena |last2=Claidière |first2=Nicolas |last3=Mercier |first3=Hugo |date=August 2015 |title=Universal cognitive mechanisms explain the cultural success of bloodletting |url=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1090513815000136 |journal=Evolution and Human Behavior |language=en |volume=36 |issue=4 |pages=303–312 |bibcode=2015EHumB..36..303M |doi=10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2015.01.003}}</ref> The PSF is a subset of [[Human Relations Area Files|eHRAF]] data that includes only one culture from each of 60 macro-culture areas around the world.  The prevalence of bloodletting in PSF controls for pseudo-replication linked to common ancestry, suggesting that bloodletting has independently emerged many times. Bloodletting is varied in its practices cross-culturally, for example, in native Alaskan culture bloodletting was practiced for different indications, using different tools, on different body areas, by different people, and it was explained by different medical theories.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Fortuine |first=R. |date=1985 |title=Lancets of stone: traditional methods of surgery among the Alaska natives |url=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11616622/ |journal=Arctic Anthropology |volume=22 |issue=1 |pages=23–45 |issn=0066-6939 |pmid=11616622}}</ref>

According to Helena Miton et al.'s <ref name=":0" /> analysis of the [[Human Relations Area Files|HRAF]] database and other sources, there are several cross-cultural patterns in bloodletting.

* Bloodletting is not self-administered. Out of 14 cultures in which the bloodletting practitioner was mentioned, the practitioner was always a third party. 13 out of 14 of the cultures had practitioners with roles related to medicine, while one culture had a practitioner whose role was not related to medicine.
* The idea of bloodletting removing "bad blood" that needs to be taken out was common, and was explicitly mentioned in 10 out of 14 cultures studied with detailed descriptions of bloodletting.
* Bloodletting is not thought to be effective against illness caused supernaturally by humans (e.g., witchcraft). This is surprising, because in most cultures witchcraft and sorcery can be blamed for ailments.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Murdock |first1=George P. |last2=Wilson |first2=Suzanne F. |last3=Frederick |first3=Violetta |date=October 1978 |title=World Distribution of Theories of Illness |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3773194 |journal=Ethnology |volume=17 |issue=4 |pages=449 |doi=10.2307/3773194 |issn=0014-1828 |jstor=3773194}}</ref> But out of 14 cultures with detailed bloodletting descriptions, there was no evidence of bloodletting being used to cure witchcraft-related ailments, while bloodletting was recorded as a cure for ailments of other origins. The [[Azande people|Azande]] culture has been recorded to believe that bloodletting does not work to cure human-related witchcraft ailments. <ref>{{Citation |last=Schmitt |first=Rüdiger |title=Edward Evan Evans-Pritchard: Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic among the Azande (1937) |date=2019 |work=Schlüsselwerke der Religionssoziologie |pages=167–171 |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-15250-5_20 |access-date=2023-07-17 |place=Wiesbaden |publisher=Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden |doi=10.1007/978-3-658-15250-5_20 |isbn=978-3-658-15249-9 |s2cid=201473885}}</ref>
* Bloodletting is usually administered directly to the affected area, e.g. if the patient has a headache, a cut is made on the forehead. Out of 14 cultures with information on the localization of bloodletting, 11 at least sometimes removed blood from the affected area, while 3 specifically removed blood from a different area from the area in pain. Europe is the only continent with more instances of non-colocalized than colocalized bloodletting.

In a [[transmission chain experiment]] done on people living in the US through [[Amazon Mechanical Turk]], stories about bloodletting in a non-affected area were much more likely to transition into stories about bloodletting being administered near the area in pain than vice versa.<ref name=":0" /> This suggests that colocalized bloodletting could be a [[Cultural attractor theory|cultural attractor]] and is more likely to be culturally transmitted, even among people in the US who are likely more familiar with non-colocalized bloodletting. 

Bloodletting as a concept is thought to be a cultural attractor, or an intrinsically attractive / culturally transmissible concept. This could explain bloodletting's independent cross-cultural emergence and common cross-cultural traits.<ref name=":0" />