I don’t think either class was based off anything in 3.5. that would probably be a copy write infringement, so I am pretty sure they did not. More likely they based it on real word legends and mythology.
Good luck reaching a developer Paizo is not really doing anything with 1st edition anymore, so they are unlikely to respond.
Yeah, they are "original", though the shaman is based mostly on the witch and druid spell lists.
What makes you believe they have based the classes off of 3.5 classes? Did they actually do that for any post-CRB classes?
The used the base classes from the 3.5 PHB for the CRB (and some of the prestige classes from the DMG), but that's because when they started PF as a system, it was utterly vital to draw in 3.5 players who didn't want to transition to 4E, and giving the players somethign familiar with was the logical way to go.
I don’t think either class was based off anything in 3.5. that would probably be a copy write infringement, so I am pretty sure they did not.
Nah, spell lists are covered by the OGL. But I still think you're right, otherwise.
One thing I've noticed is that if you have both shaman and witch in the party you cover all the main passive buffs you usually get from wizard+cleric, just split differently. If shaman is missing a traditional cleric buff then the witch has it, and if witch is missing a traditional wizard buff then the shaman has it.
So the shaman and witch spell lists seem to have been designed with each other in mind.