2. The Origins of the Peyote Controversy
2.1. The Mexican Precedent
2.2. The Diffusion of Peyotism2 in the United States
2.3. James Mooney (1861–1921) and the Early Ethnography of Peyotism
3. The Role of Anthropologists in the Legislative Battle Against Prohibition (1915–1937)
3.1. Early Regulatory Efforts
3.1.1. The Failure of Prohibiting Orders on Reservations
3.1.2. The Inapplicability of the Territorial Law
3.1.3. An Attempt at Passing a State Law
Gentlemen, I am glad to meet you all this morning. My name is Quanah Parker. […] I am an Indian myself; I am half white. My mother was a white woman; I attend to the government business for a good many years. […] My Indians use what they call peotus; some call it mescal; all my Indian people use that for medicine. That is a good medicine and when my people are sick they use it. It is no poison and we want to keep that medicine. I use that and I use the white doctor’s medicine, and my people use it too. I want to keep this medicine. I said while ago, my ways in time will wear out, and in time this medicine will wear out too. My people are citizens of the United States, and my people keep the right way; they go to school and teach school; I wish you delegates will look after my people—look after my Indians.
3.2. The Increasing Involvement of Anthropologists in the Legislative Arena
3.2.1. Getting Prepared for the Federal Battle
3.2.2. The Hayden Bill and the 1918 Congressional Hearings
Believing that peyote is the comforter sent by God, they reject the teachings of the Church. Believing that peyote reveals the secret thoughts of man and gives super human knowledge of the contents of books, they deprecate the necessity of schools. Believing peyote a cure-all for every human ailment, they ignore the advice and aid of physicians. Attending the weekly peyote meetings, they waste time, strength, and money, consequently neglecting their homes and farms.(U.S. Congress et al. 1918 [emphasis added])
My experience is that the Bureau of Ethnology has never been helpful to the Indians in any respect […] the ethnologists always lead the Indian’s mind back into the past. […] You ethnologists egg on, frequent, illustrate, and exaggerate at the public expense, and so give the Indian race and their civilization a black eye in the public esteem. It was well established at the time of the ghost-dance craze among the Indians that white men were its promoters if not its originators. That this peyote craze is under the same impulse is evident from what appears in this evidence.
The proof is clear that the physicians, the chemists, the missionaries, and many of those who are endeavoring to uplift the Indian, are convinced of the harmful effects of peyote and desire to see its use discontinued. […] The writer of this report heard many Indians testify on behalf of the drug, and gave due weight to their testimony, but certainly they are to some extent interested, while the bulk of those advocating the passage of the bill are disinterested.(U.S. Congress et al. 1918 [emphasis added])
3.3. The Creation of the Native American Church
3.3.1. A Preventive Legal Strategy
The purpose for which this corporation is formed is to foster and promote the religious belief of the several tribes of Indians in the state of Oklahoma, in the Christian religion with the practice of the Peyote Sacrament as commonly understood and used among the adherents of this religion.(Stewart 1993 [emphasis added])
3.3.2. The Role of Anthropologists in the Creation of the NAC
3.3.3. The Subsequent Retaliation against James Mooney
4. The Role of Anthropologists in the Legal Defense of Peyotism before Courts (1956–1980)
4.1. The Reconfiguration of the Peyote Controversy
4.1.1. The Multiplication of Anti-peyote State Laws; and Their Relative Efficiency
4.1.2. Following the Trail of James Mooney
4.1.3. The Evolution of the Federal Attitude Towards Peyote
4.2. Cultural Expertise and Strategic Litigation
4.2.1. Elaborating a Test Case Strategy
4.2.2. The Woody Decision (1964) and Subsequent Successes
[The] right to free religious expression embodies a precious heritage of our history. In a mass society, which presses at every point toward conformity, the protection of a self-expression, however unique, of the individual and the group becomes ever more important. The varying currents of the subcultures that flow into the mainstream of our national life give depth and beauty. We preserve a greater value than an ancient tradition when we protect the rights of the Indians who honestly practiced an old religion in using peyote one night at a meeting in a desert hogan near Needles, California.
4.2.3. The Texas Crisis (1967–1969)
4.2.4. Anthropologists as Strategic Expert Witnesses
Conflicts of Interest
- Aberle, David F. 1966. The Peyote Religion among the Navajo. New York: Wenner Gren Fundation for Anthropological Research. [Google Scholar]
- Aberle, David F., and Omer C. Stewart. 1957. Navaho and Ute Peyotism: A Chronogical and Distributional Study. Boulder: University of Colorado Press. [Google Scholar]
- Adams, David W. 1997. Education for Extinction: American Indians and the Boarding School Experience, 1875–1928. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press. [Google Scholar]
- Aguirre Beltrán, Gonzalo. 1963. Medicina y Magia. El Proceso de Aculturación en la Estructura Colonial. Mexico: Instituto Nacional Indigenista. [Google Scholar]
- American Anthropologist. 1961. Court Decision regarding Peyote and the Native American Church. American Anthropologist 63: 1335–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anderson, Edward F. 1996. Peyote: The Divine Cactus. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. [Google Scholar]
- Antell, Judith A., and Malcolm D. Holmes. 2001. The Social Construction of American Indian Drinking: Perceptions of American Indian and White Officials. Sociological Quarterly 42: 151–73. [Google Scholar]
- Belcher, Wyatt W. 1953. The Political Leadership of Robert L. Owen. The Chronicles of Oklahoma 31: 361–71. [Google Scholar]
- Benciolini, Maria, and Arturo Gutiérrez del Ángel. 2016. From Solid to Frothy: Use of Peyote in the Cora and Huichol Easter in Western Mexico. In Peyote: History, Tradition, Politics, and Conservation. Edited by Beatrice C. Labate and Clancy Cavnar. Santa Barbara: Praeger, pp. 171–90. [Google Scholar]
- Boas, Franz. 1938. Truman Michelson. International Journal of American Linguistics 9: 113–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boas, Franz, Alfred L. Kroeber, Aleš Hrdlička, John P. Harrington, Mark R. Harrington, Weston La Barre, Vincenzo M. Petrullo, Richard E. Schultes, Elna Smith, and Chief Lookout. 1937. Statement against the Chavez Senate Bill 1349. Congressional Record, February 8. [Google Scholar]
- Bureau of Indian Affairs. 1922. Peyote: An Abridged Compilation from the Files of the Bureau of Indian Affairs; Washington: Government Printing Office.
- Cavnar, Clancy, and Beatriz C. Labate, eds. 2016. Prohibition, Religious Freedom, and Human Rights: Regulating Traditional Drug Use. Berlin: Springer. [Google Scholar]
- Chuchiak, John. 2012. The Inquisition in New Spain, 1536–1820: A Documentary History. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Clifford, James. 1988. The Predicament of Culture: Twentieth-Century Ethnography, Literature, and Art. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Colby, William M. 1978. Routes to Rainy Mountain: A Biography of James Mooney, Ethnologist. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison. [Google Scholar]
- Dawson, Alexander S. 2016. Peyote in the Colonial Imagination. In Peyote: History, Tradition, Politics, and Conservation. Edited by Beatrice C. Labate and Clancy Cavnar. Santa Barbara: Praeger, pp. 43–62. [Google Scholar]
- Dawson, Alexander S. 2018. The Peyote Effect: From the Inquisition to the War on Drugs. Oakland: University of California Press. [Google Scholar]
- Department of the Interior. 1912. Annual Report of the Board of Indian Commissioners to the Secretary of the Interior, for Submission to the President; Washington: Government Printing Office.
- Deseret News. 1992. Death: Omer Stewart. Deseret News, January 14. [Google Scholar]
- Dick, Erika, and Tolly Bradford. 2012. Peyote on the prairies: Religion, scientists, and Native-newcomer relations in western Canada. Journal of Canadian Studies 46: 28–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- El-Seedi, Hesham R., Peter A. De Smet, Olof Beck, Göran Possnert, and Jan G. Bruhn. 2005. Prehistoric peyote use: Alkaloid analysis and radiocarbon dating of archaeological specimens of Lophophora from Texas. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 101: 238–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Foster, George M. 1969. Applied Anthropology. Boston: Little, Brown. [Google Scholar]
- Godlaski, Theodore M. 2011. The God within. Substance Use and Misuse 46: 1217–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gormley, Donald C. 1955. The Role of the Expert Witness. Ethnohistory 2: 326–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Greenleaf, Richard. 1965. The Inquisition and the Indians of New Spain: A Study in Jurisdictional Confusion. The Americas 22: 138–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grillo, Ralph. 2016. Anthropologists Engaged with the Law (and Lawyers). Antropologia Pubblica 2: 3–24. [Google Scholar]
- Hagan, William T. 1993. Quanah Parker, Comanche Chief. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. [Google Scholar]
- Halpern, John H., Andrea R. Sherwood, James I. Hudson, Deborah Yurgelun-Todd, and Harrison G. Pope Jr. 2005. Psychological and Cognitive Effects of Long-Term Peyote Use Among Native Americans. Biological Psychiatry 58: 624–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Holden, Livia, ed. 2011. Cultural Expertise and Litigation: Patterns, Conflicts, Narratives. New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
- Holden, Livia. 2019a. Cultural Expertise and Socio-Legal Studies: Introduction. Studies in Law, Politics, and Society 78: 1–12. [Google Scholar]
- Holden, Livia. 2019b. Beyond Anthropological Expert Witnessing: Toward an Integrated Definition of Cultural Expertise. Studies in Law, Politics, and Society 78: 181–202. [Google Scholar]
- Irwin, Lee. 1997. Freedom, Law, and Prophecy: A Brief History of Native American Religious Resistance. American Indian Quarterly 21: 33–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jackson, Curtis, and Marcia Galli. 1977. A History of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Its Activities among Indians. San Francisco: R&E Research Associates. [Google Scholar]
- Jahoda, Gloria. 1995. Trail of Tears: The Story of the American Indian Removal 1813–1855. New York: Wings Books. [Google Scholar]
- Kahan, Fannie. 2016. A Culture’s Catalyst: Historical Encounters with Peyote and the Native American Church in Canada. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press. [Google Scholar]
- Kroeber, Alfred L. 1902. The Arapaho. New York: American Museum of Natural History. [Google Scholar]
- La Barre, Weston. 1938. The Peyote Cult. New Haven: Yale University Press. [Google Scholar]
- La Barre, Weston. 1939. Notes on Richard Schultes’ “The Appeal of Peyote”. American Anthropologist 41: 340–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- La Barre, Weston, David P. McAllester, James S. Slotkin, Omer C. Stewart, and Sol Tax. 1951. Statement on Peyote. Science 114: 582–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- León-Portilla, Miguel. 2002. Bernardino de Sahagún: The First Anthropologist. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. [Google Scholar]
- Lewandowski, Tadeusz. 2016. Red Bird, Red Power: The Life and Legacy of Zitkala-Ša. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. [Google Scholar]
- Lewis, Diane. 1973. Anthropology and Colonialism. Current Anthropology 14: 581–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lewis, Ioan M. 1988. Anthropologists for sale? LSE Quarterly 2: 49–63. [Google Scholar]
- Lumholtz, Carl. 1902. Unknown Mexico: A Record of Five Years’ Exploration among the Tribes of the Western Sierra Madre. New York: C. Scribner’s Sons. [Google Scholar]
- Mark, Joan. 1982. Francis La Flesche: The American Indian as Anthropologist. ISIS 73: 495–510. [Google Scholar]
- Maroukis, Thomas C. 2012. Peyote Road: Religious Freedom and the Native American Church. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. [Google Scholar]
- Martin, Jill E. 2003. “The Greatest Evil” Interpretations Of Indian Prohibition Laws, 1832–1953. Great Plains Quarterly 23: 35–53. [Google Scholar]
- Memmi, Albert, and Howard Greenfield. 1967. The Colonizer and the Colonized. Boston: Beacon Press. [Google Scholar]
- Mertz, Douglas K. 1994. The Role of the Anthropologist as Expert Witness in Litigation. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Alaska Anthropological Association, Anchorage, AK, USA, April 6–9. [Google Scholar]
- Mooney, James. 1891. The Sacred Formulas of the Cherokee. Bureau of American Ethnology Annual Report 7: 303–97. [Google Scholar]
- Mooney, James. 1892. A Kiowa Mescal Rattle. American Anthropologist 5: 64–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mooney, James. 1896. The Mescal Plant and Ceremony. Therapeutic Gazette 12: 7–11. [Google Scholar]
- Mooney, James. 1897. The Kiowa Peyote Ritual. Der Urquell 1: 329–33. [Google Scholar]
- Mooney, James. 2012. The Ghost-Dance Religion and the Sioux Outbreak of 1890. Miami: HardPress Publishing. [Google Scholar]
- Morgan, George R., and Omer C. Stewart. 1984. Peyote trade in South Texas. The Southwestern Historical Quarterly 87: 270–96. [Google Scholar]
- Moses, L. G. 1978. James Mooney and the Peyote Controversy. Chronicles of Oklahoma 56: 127–44. [Google Scholar]
- Moses, L. G. 2002. The Indian Man: A Biography of James Mooney. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. [Google Scholar]
- Musto, David F. 1999. The American Disease: Origins of Narcotic Control. New York: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
- New York Times. 1962. Trial of Navajo Members of the Native American Church. New York Times, November 30. [Google Scholar]
- Newsom, Michael deHaven. 2005. Some Kind of Religious Freedom: National Prohibition and the Volstead Act’s exemption for the Religious Use of Wine. Brooklyn Law Review 70: 739–888. [Google Scholar]
- O’Brien, Sharon L. 1995. Freedom of Religion in Indian Country. Montana Law Review 56: 451–84. [Google Scholar]
- Oklahoma, Constitutional Convention. 1907. Proceedings and Debates of the Constitutional Convention of Oklahoma: Nov. 20, 1906 to March 11, 1907. Guthrie: Muskogee Printing Co. [Google Scholar]
- Olson, Theodore B. 1981. Peyote Exemption for Native American Church: Memorandum Opinion For The Chief Counsel, Drug Enforcement Administration; Washington: Department of Justice.
- Petrullo, Vincenzo M. 1934. The Diabolic Root: A Study of Peyotism, the New Religion Among the Delawares. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. [Google Scholar]
- Philip, Kenneth R. 1977. John Collier’s Crusade for Indian Reform, 1920–1954. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. [Google Scholar]
- Pinkoski, Marc. 2008. Julian Steward, American anthropology, and colonialism. Histories of Anthropology Annual 4: 172–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prucha, Francis. 1990. Documents of United States Indian Policy. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. [Google Scholar]
- Quezada, Noemí. 1991. The Inquisition’s Repression of Curanderos. In Cultural Encounters: The Impact of the Inquisition in Spain and the New World. Edited by Mary Elizabeth Perry and Anne J. Cruz. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 37–57. [Google Scholar]
- Rodriguez, Leila. 2018. Introduction: Cultural Expert Testimony in American Legal Proceedings. Studies in Law, Politics and Society 74: 1–10. [Google Scholar]
- Rojas-Aréchiga, Mariana, and Joel Flores. 2016. An Overview of Cacti and the Controversial Peyote. In Peyote: History, Tradition, Politics, and Conservation. Edited by Beatrice C. Labate and Clancy Cavnar. Santa Barbara: Praeger, pp. 21–42. [Google Scholar]
- Rosemblatt, Karin A. 2018. The Science and Politics of Race in Mexico and the United States, 1910–1950. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. [Google Scholar]
- Rosen, Lawrence. 1977. The Anthropologist as Expert Witness. American Anthropologist 79: 555–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosen, Lawrence. 1979. Response to Stewart. American Anthropologist 81: 111–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schaefer, Stacy B. 2015. Amada’s Blessings from the Peyote Gardens of South Texas. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. [Google Scholar]
- Schultes, Richard E. 1938. The Appeal of Peyote (Lophophora Williamsii) as a Medicine. American Anthropologist 40: 698–715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Slotkin, James S. 1951. Early eighteenth century documents on Peyotism north of the Rio Grande. American Anthropologist 53: 420–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Slotkin, James S. 1955. Peyotism, 1521–1891. American Anthropologist 57: 202–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Slotkin, James S. 1956. The Peyote Religion: A Study in Indian-white Relations. Glencoe: Free Press. [Google Scholar]
- Slotkin, James S., and David P. McAllester. 1952. Menomini Peyotism, a Study of Individual Variation in a Primary Group with a Homogeneous Culture. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 42: 565–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, Huston, and Reuben Snake, eds. 1996. One Nation Under God: The Triumph of the Native American Church. Santa Fe: Clear Light Publishers. [Google Scholar]
- Spivak, Gayatri C. 1988. Can the subaltern speak? In Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture. Edited by Cary Nelson. Basingstoke: Macmillan, pp. 271–313. [Google Scholar]
- Stewart, Omer C. 1941. The Southern Ute peyote cult. American Anthropologist 43: 303–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stewart, Omer C. 1944. Washo-Northern Paiute Peyotism: A Study in Acculturation. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 40: 63–141. [Google Scholar]
- Stewart, Omer C. 1948. Ute Peyotism: A Study of a Cultural Complex. Boulder: University of Colorado Press. [Google Scholar]
- Stewart, Omer C. 1979. An Expert Witness Answers Rosen. American Anthropologist 81: 108–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stewart, Omer C. 1983. Historical Notes about Applied Anthropology in the United States. Human Organization 42: 189–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stewart, Omer C. 1986. Peyotism in California. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 8: 217–25. [Google Scholar]
- Stewart, Omer C. 1993. Peyote Religion: A History. Norman: Oklahoma University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Taylor, William. 1996. Magistrates of the Sacred: Priests and Parishioners in Eighteenth-century Mexico. Stanford: Stanford University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Terrya, Martin, Karen L. Steelmanb, Tom Guildersonc, Phil Deringd, and Marvin W. Rowee. 2006. Lower Pecos and Coahuila peyote: new radiocarbon dates. Journal of Archaeological Science 33: 1017–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teubner, Gunther, ed. 1987. Juridification of Social Spheres: A Comparative Analysis in the Areas of Labor, Corporate, Antitrust and Social Welfare Law. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. [Google Scholar]
- Time. 1951a. Medicine: Button, Button …. Time, June 18, vol. 57. [Google Scholar]
- Time. 1951b. Letters. Time, July 9, vol. 28. [Google Scholar]
- U.S. Congress, House, and Committee on Indian Affairs. 1918. Peyote; Hearings on H.R. 2614, 67th Cong., 2d sess; Washington: Government Printing Office.
- Weeks, Paul. 1962. Indian Use of Peyote to Face Test in Court. Los Angeles Times, November 13. [Google Scholar]
- Welsh, Herbert. 1918. Peyote: An Insidious Evil. Philadelphia: Indian Rights Association. [Google Scholar]
- Wiedman, Dennis. 2012. Upholding Indigenous Freedoms of Religion and Medicine: Peyotists at the 1906–1908 Oklahoma Constitutional Convention and First Legislature. American Indian Quarterly 36: 215–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
The neologism “entheogen” (“generating the divine within”) refers to any psychoactive substance when used for its religious or spiritual effects, whether or not in a formal religious or traditional structure. This neologism, coined in the late 1970s by a group of ethnobotanists and religious scholars, including Richard Evans Schultes and Robert Gordon Wasson (Godlaski 2011), is often chosen to contrast with recreational use of the same substances. Entheogens have been used in a ritualized context for thousands of years and their religious significance is well established with anthropological and academic literature. Examples of traditional entheogens include psilocybin mushrooms, ayahuasca, iboga, salvia, and cannabis (Cavnar and Labate 2016).
“Peyotism” generally refers to the entheogenic use of peyote as practiced by Native Americans; by extension, “peyotists” refers to the practitioners of the faith. The term was framed by Vincenzo Petrullo in his 1934 doctoral dissertation (Petrullo 1934).
Another ceremony was raided in April of the same year in Custer County, Oklahoma, resulting on the arrest of nine Cheyenne and Arapaho Peyotists, and seven Native American “witnesses”. The case was brought to trial at Arapaho in July, and a similar “semantic” defense was raised. Again, the court dismissed the charges, founding that mescal was not to be confused with peyote, and that the latter was not covered by the Territorial statute. Stewart reports that this semantic confusion dated back to the late 19th century, when the use of peyote was first observed by American authorities and confused with that of mescal (Stewart 1993).
La Flesche (1857–1932) was born on the Omaha reservation in Nebraska, and became the first professional Native American anthropologist. He joined the Bureau of American Ethnology in 1910, and remained until his death. He investigated the practice of peyote use among the Ponca and the Osage, although he did not published significant work about peyotism (Mark 1982).
Michelson (1879–1938) a distinguished linguist, was not as experienced as Mooney and La Flesche in relation with peyote, but had the occasion to observe ceremonies among the Northern Arapaho in Wyoming (Boas 1938).
The NAC nowadays claims close to 300,000 members and hundreds of local chapters, with members belonging to more than seventy Native American tribes. The church has retained a complex and loosely organized structure, divided between four main branches—none of which having any direct theological or legal control over the others—: the NAC of Oklahoma, the NAC of North America, the Azee Bee Nahagha of Diné Nation, and the NAC of South Dakota (Smith and Snake 1996; Maroukis 2012).
Gertrude Bonnin also participated in the legislative effort in Colorado and Nevada, where anti-peyote statutes were enacted simultaneously in February 1917. In the case of Nevada, it is interesting to note that the prohibition was adopted a by the mid-1930s was organized on fourteen reservations and had well over ten-thousand members, decades before peyotism actually started to spread in the state (Stewart 1993).
Alfred L. Kroeber (1876–1960), a figure of American cultural anthropology, received his Ph.D. under the supervision of Franz Boas at Columbia University in 1901 (the first doctorate in anthropology awarded by the University). He then became the first professor appointed to the Department of Anthropology at Berkeley University. He observed and wrote about the use of peyote in the context of his doctoral research among the Arapaho (Kroeber 1902).
Schultes’s argument was challenged by La Barre, who succeeded in imposing his view that the “religious appeal” of peyote was the crucial element behind peyotism’s rapid and vast expansion (La Barre 1939).
The peyote prohibition on the Navajo reservation was eventually lifted a decade later. It is now estimated that over half the Tribe’s members have adopted peyotism, meaning that about one-fourth of the membership in the NAC is Navajo (Stewart 1993).
Through the intermediary of Omer Stewart, the opinion was published in the American Anthropologist (American Anthropologist 1961).
Stewart conserved the chair of the Department of Anthropology at the University of Colorado—which he funded in 1944—until his death in 1991.
Unconvinced by Stewart’s arguments, Rosen published his final answer the same year (Rosen 1979). It should be noted here that this debate unfolded in the context of the Mashpee litigation, whose 41-day trial saw the confrontation of anthropologists’ and historian’s expertise, and was recorded by James Clifford (Clifford 1988).
See, for instance, the role of anthropologist Jay C. Fikes in the campaign for the adoption of the 1994 Amendments to the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, which followed the resounding Supreme Court’s decision in Smith and allowed for the safeguarding of the exemption scheme and a relative stabilization of the controversy (Maroukis 2012).
© 2019 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).