The method
How we rank evidence
MushroomTribes exists to separate what is known from what is merely repeated. This page explains the system that appears on every culture, species, debate, and map marker across the site.
One principle above all
The archive never blurs the line between evidence and interpretation. A carved stone is evidence; the claim that it proves an ancient mushroom cult is interpretation. A recorded chant is evidence; the story built around it is interpretation. Most bad psychedelic history is made by letting the second quietly wear the clothes of the first. Every page here is labelled so the two never trade places.
The six labels
Each entry carries one of six labels. They describe the kind of support behind a claim — not a simple better-to-worse score. "Newly documented" is not weaker than "archaeological"; it is a different situation. What the labels share is honesty about what we can and cannot say.
- 01 Documented Living Tradition Supported by contemporary ethnography, direct observation, interviews, or testimony from living practitioners.
- 02 Strong Historical Evidence Supported by colonial records, historical documents, Indigenous texts, or multiple reliable scholarly sources.
- 03 Archaeological Interpretation Based on artifacts, iconography, codices, sculpture, or material evidence whose ritual meaning must be reconstructed.
- 04 Newly Documented Supported by recent research that is credible but still developing in the peer-reviewed literature.
- 05 Disputed A meaningful scholarly theory with serious disagreement or insufficient direct evidence.
- 06 Speculative A claim repeated in popular psychedelic culture but poorly supported by primary evidence.
Evidence type versus confidence
We record two different things. The evidence label says what kind of support exists. A separate confidence reading — high, medium, low — says how strongly we hold the overall picture, all things considered. A tradition can rest on solid ethnography (a strong kind) yet still carry medium confidence because the fieldwork is decades old or geographically narrow. Keeping the two apart prevents a single impressive source from standing in for certainty.
The kinds of evidence on a page
Within an entry, the "Evidence" section separates support by kind, because a colonial text, a living interview, and a carved artifact are not interchangeable:
- Firsthand testimony
- Contemporary ethnography
- Colonial text
- Indigenous manuscript
- Archaeology
- Iconography
- Linguistic evidence
- Oral tradition
- Botanical / mycological
- Later scholarly interpretation
How we rate a debate
Debate pages state the strongest case for and the strongest case against side by side, then give a standing — open, leans supported, leans against, or unresolved. We do not manufacture a verdict to end an argument the scholarship has not ended. When the honest answer is "we don't know," that is the answer we publish.
Which sources we trust, and in what order
When sources conflict, we weight them roughly in this order:
- Indigenous scholars and community sources
- Primary ethnography and direct testimony
- Peer-reviewed academic research
- Colonial and archival primary documents (read critically)
- Museum and university collections
- Reputable secondary scholarship
Psychedelic lifestyle blogs are cited only when the subject is modern popular belief or commercialisation — never as evidence for a historical or ethnographic claim.
The writing standard
Tone follows evidence. We avoid the two failure modes of the genre — false certainty and false mystery:
“The Maya definitely worshipped psychedelic mushrooms.”
“Carved mushroom stones have led some scholars to propose a ritual mushroom complex. Others dispute this, and no directly observed ceremony survives to settle the argument.”
Where an entry cannot be sure, it says so plainly in a "What remains uncertain" section. That section is not a disclaimer bolted on at the end — it is part of the evidence.
Corrections
Scholarship changes and we get things wrong. Every page shows an editorial record and, where relevant, a corrections history. Communities and scholars can request amendments or the removal of sensitive material. Getting it right matters more than getting it first.