A historical photograph of an Ojibwe birch-bark wigwam in a woodland clearing.

North America · Culture

Ojibwe (Anishinaabe)

Anishinaabe

An Ojibwe wigwam — the woodland people of the Great Lakes. — Historical photograph · Public domain · Source

Western Great Lakes, North America

Contested Mystery

A single, remarkable source — the Anishinaabe elder and ethnobotanist Keewaydinoquay — reports a ceremonial fly-agaric tradition, miskwedo, among the peoples of the western Great Lakes. It is the best-known claim for a North American Amanita practice, and it rests on one voice.

A North American fly agaric?

Ceremonial mushroom use is famously hard to document north of Mexico — which is what makes the Anishinaabe case so striking. The elder, herbalist, and Harvard-trained ethnobotanist Keewaydinoquay Peschel reported a genuine ceremonial tradition around the fly agaric, Amanita muscaria, which she called miskwedo, among the peoples of the western Great Lakes.1

One voice, carried with care

Almost everything known about miskwedo comes from Keewaydinoquay herself — her 1978 Puhpohwee for the People and her decades of teaching. That makes it a tradition of real cultural weight and thin external corroboration at the same time. The archive honours her testimony as a knowledge-holder’s own account while being honest that it rests, essentially, on a single source.2

Why it is rated disputed

The disputed label here is evidentiary, not a judgement of Keewaydinoquay. A practice known through one voice, however authoritative, cannot be treated as securely as the Koryak or Mazatec record — and it should not be generalised to all Anishinaabe communities. Where fly agaric is used, the chemistry is muscimol, not psilocybin: see Amanita muscaria.

Footnotes

  1. Keewaydinoquay, Puhpohwee for the People (1978).

  2. Discussed in Ott, Pharmacotheon (1993); the wider fly-agaric picture in Letcher, Shroom (2006).

The record

Names of the mushroom

NameLanguageTranslation / gloss
miskwedo / oshtimisk wajashkwedoOjibwe (Anishinaabemowin)

Indigenous- and local-language names appear in many spellings across dialects, publications, and orthographies. We record them as given in our sources and do not standardise them or invent translations. A dagger (†) marks a form our sources flag as uncertain.

Historical record

  1. 1978

    Puhpohwee for the People

    Keewaydinoquay Peschel, an Anishinaabe elder trained as an ethnobotanist, publishes an account of ceremonial Amanita muscaria (miskwedo) use among her people.

    Firsthand testimony
  2. late 20th c.

    A single-source tradition

    The practice is known almost entirely through Keewaydinoquay's testimony and teaching; independent corroboration is limited.

    Oral tradition

Evidence

The support for this entry, separated by kind. Different kinds of evidence carry different weight.

Firsthand testimony
Keewaydinoquay, Puhpohwee for the People (1978); her later teaching and writing.
Oral tradition
The account is a knowledge-holder's own testimony, of high cultural value but limited independent corroboration.
◐ Open questions

What remains uncertain

  • The tradition rests essentially on a single knowledge-holder's account; it is not independently well-documented.
Sources & editorial record

Sources & further reading

  1. Keewaydinoquay Peschel (1978). Puhpohwee for the People: Some Uses of Fungi among the Ahnishinaubeg. Ethnomycological Studies 5, Harvard Botanical Museum.

    An Anishinaabe (Ojibwe) elder and ethnobotanist’s account of ceremonial Amanita muscaria (miskwedo) use — a rare, single-source, and debated North American case.

    BookPrimaryLibrary / print

  2. Jonathan Ott (1993). Pharmacotheon: Entheogenic Drugs, Their Plant Sources and History. Natural Products Co..

    Encyclopaedic survey of entheogens; compiles obscure and historical mushroom cases, including the 17th-century Yurimagua mushroom inebriant reported from the Amazon.

    BookSecondaryLibrary / print

  3. Andy Letcher (2006). Shroom: A Cultural History of the Magic Mushroom. Faber & Faber.

    A critical cultural history that deflates several popular entheogenic myths — useful precisely where it disagrees with the psychedelic canon.

    BookSecondaryLibrary / print

Editorial record

Corrections history

No corrections recorded yet. Spotted an error or a mischaracterisation? See how corrections work.

Last reviewed

15 July 2026

Communities and scholars may request amendments or the removal of sensitive material.