The kykeon administered at the Eleusinian Mysteries contained deliberately prepared ergot.

A distant unreplicated analogue plus demonstrated feasibility, against a silent recipe (TIK-E015) and audited accounts showing no drug expenditure (TIK-E016); the sanctuary's direct-evidence cell is untested rather than negative (TIK-E009), which is why this is not contradicted. TIK-E019 reinforces the discipline against hardening this rung but adds no new ancient datum.

Support is one distant unreplicated analogue (TIK-E007) plus demonstrated feasibility (TIK-E008), against a silent recipe (TIK-E015) and publicly audited accounts showing conventional grain use (TIK-E016). It stays weakly_supported rather than contradicted only because the direct residue test at Eleusis has never been run (TIK-E009, TIK-R001).

One distant unreplicated analogue (TIK-C004) and demonstrated feasibility (TIK-C005) against a silent recipe (TIK-E015) and audited accounts with no drug expenditure (TIK-E016). Not contradicted, because the decisive residue test has never been run (TIK-E009).

The hypothesis combines a chemically proven feasibility mechanism with circumstantial evidence like the Iberian ergot analogue to posit a deliberately prepared psychedelic kykeon. The strongest opposing consideration is the literal empty cell at the target site: no Eleusinian vessel has ever been chemically tested, the public recipe names no drugs, and the sanctuary's audited financial accounts record grain being handled completely conventionally.

The combination of a plausible detoxification mechanism (TIK-C005), the Mas Castellar analogue in a Demeter/Persephone context (TIK-C004), and a barley-based drink at Eleusis makes an ergot kykeon possible and non-ad hoc. Nonetheless, there is currently no direct chemical evidence from Eleusis: no sanctuary vessels have been tested, the canonical recipe names no psychoactive, and Eleusinian financial inscriptions do not show drug-related expenditures. The best opposing consideration is precisely this triple silence – textual, epigraphic, and residue – at the site that matters most, combined with the need to posit a specific, unattested alkaline-processing step.

The affirmative case is circumstantial scaffolding: a workable ancient-available chemical pathway, one unreplicated Iberian analogue in a Demeter/Kore setting, and a canonical recipe whose barley is ergot's host, around a cell that is still empty because no vessel from Eleusis has ever been chemically analyzed. Against it stand the Hymn's silence on any additive, Clinton's point that publicly audited sanctuary accounts track grain into sacrifices and dedications rather than drug production, the unattested two-hour alkaline technology the 2026 result now requires, and the methodological critique that this literature promotes possibility into fact. The strongest opposing consideration is the empty cell itself plus distance: analogy from Spain and feasibility in a modern flask are not a detection at the sanctuary, and an untested absence is not a positive.

For: one genuine archaeological analogue with substance, ingestion, and cult context — a thousand kilometers away and analyzed once (TIK-E007); one demonstrated chemical pathway (TIK-E008); and an empty cell at Eleusis that is an untested absence, not a negative result (TIK-E009). Against: the canonical recipe names nothing psychoactive (TIK-E015), the sanctuary's stone-published audited accounts track grain to sacrifices and dedications with no drug expenditure (TIK-E016), the required multi-hour alkaline technology is attested nowhere, and the literature exhibits a documented pattern of solidifying possibility into fact (TIK-E019). The strongest opposing consideration is the stacking problem: the claim requires a secret ingredient and a secret technology at a sanctuary with an unusually public economy, supported archaeologically only by a different site, society, and century. Weak support is warranted; TIK-R001 is the cheap decisive test both sides point to.

There is a genuine circumstantial structure — a feasible chemical pathway (TIK-C005), one substance-in-cult-context analogue (TIK-C004), barley as ergot's host — and the absence at Eleusis is an untested absence, since no sanctuary vessel has ever been analysed. But the affirmative case has zero direct evidence at the target site, and the counter-record is specific rather than merely silent: the only recipe names nothing psychoactive, the required strongly alkaline multi-hour process is attested nowhere, and the sanctuary's publicly audited stone accounts track grain into sacrifices and dedications. The strongest opposing consideration to grading it this low is that the decisive test is blocked administratively rather than scientifically, so the empty cell reflects neglect and permission politics rather than searching and failing — proponents are entitled to that asymmetry. Weakly_supported, not unresolved, because the evidence that does exist is real but a thousand kilometres and several inferential steps away.

One distant unreplicated analogue plus a demonstrated mechanism, against a silent canonical recipe, audited accounts with no drug expenditure, and an empty direct-evidence cell at the sanctuary itself — an untested absence (TIK-R001), which is why this is weakly supported rather than contradicted.

One distant unreplicated analogue (TIK-C004) plus demonstrated feasibility (TIK-C005), against a silent recipe (TIK-E015), audited accounts showing no drug expenditure (TIK-E016), and an empty direct-evidence cell (TIK-E009). Weakly supported, not contradicted, because the absence is untested rather than tested.

One distant unreplicated analogue (TIK-C004) plus demonstrated chemical feasibility (TIK-C005), set against a silent recipe (TIK-E015) and publicly audited accounts recording no drug expenditure (TIK-E016). Not contradicted, because the direct residue test at Eleusis has never been run (TIK-E009) — an untested absence, not a negative result.

One genuine archaeological analogue a thousand kilometers away (TIK-C004), one demonstrated chemical pathway (TIK-C005), zero direct evidence from the target site — an absence that is currently an untested absence, since systematic residue work at Eleusis has never been conducted or permitted (TIK-E009). Against it: the canonical recipe names nothing psychoactive (TIK-E015), the sanctuary's published financial accounts record no drug expenditure (TIK-E016), and the required alkaline-processing step is attested nowhere. A materially plausible historical hypothesis with significant circumstantial evidence and no direct evidence where it matters.

Positive scaffolding: a working mechanism (TIK-E008) and one unreplicated analogue seen through citation (TIK-E007). Against: the silent recipe (TIK-E015), the audited accounts (TIK-E016), the methodological critique (TIK-E019), and an empty cell at the sanctuary both sides cite (TIK-E009). The founding hypothesis (TIK-E010) is context. No measurement bears on the claim directly.

Indirect scaffolding only: TIK-E007 (Iberian analogue through citation) and TIK-E008 (feasible mechanism). Against it, the silent recipe (TIK-E015), the audited accounts (TIK-E016), and the methodological critique (TIK-E019); TIK-E009 records that no Eleusinian vessel has ever been tested. Lineage and funding records (TIK-E010, TIK-E027) are context.

There is no direct physical or epigraphic evidence linking ergot to the sanctuary at Eleusis: zero vessels from the site have undergone residue analysis, the Homeric Hymn omits psychoactive additives, and audited financial inscriptions record standard cereal expenditures without drug compounding. The strongest opposing consideration is the discovery of ergot remains at the Demeter-linked Iberian sanctuary of Mas Castellar de Pontós, combined with the fact that Eleusinian vessels have simply never been tested.

The affirmative case is circumstantial and indirect: chemical feasibility now demonstrated, plus one ergot-in-cult-context find in Iberia that is analogy, not identity. Against it stand the canonical recipe naming nothing psychoactive with no attested processing step, and Clinton's point that the sanctuary's publicly audited accounts record grain used conventionally and nothing for drugs — an audited silence, not a mere silence. The strongest opposing consideration is the empty cell's symmetry: no vessel from Eleusis has ever been analyzed, so the decisive evidence is untested rather than negative, which is exactly why the verdict stops at weak rather than falling further.

TIK-E007 supplies an analogous ergot-and-consumption report from an Iberian Demeter-and-Kore context, and TIK-E008 establishes that an ergot-based psychoactive preparation is chemically possible. Neither record measures the contents of an Eleusinian vessel. The strongest opposing considerations are the canonical recipe's omission of ergot or alkaline processing, the reported audited financial silence, and the complete absence of systematic residue analysis at Eleusis.

Feasibility is now shown (lye conversion) and a single Iberian Demeter-linked site yielded ergot in vessel and dental calculus, raising the prior above zero. Yet no Eleusinian vessel has been analyzed, the Homeric recipe names nothing psychoactive, the sanctuary accounts record no drug outlay, and the Mas Castellar find remains unreplicated and a thousand kilometers distant. The strongest opposing consideration is the persistent empty cell at the mother sanctuary itself together with the argument from audited silence.

For: feasibility (C005), a motive (C008, itself weakly supported), and one secondhand, unreplicated ergot find in a Demeter/Kore-linked Iberian sanctuary (C004). Against: the only recipe names nothing psychoactive and no source mentions ergot or an alkaline step (E015); Clinton's point that the audited grain and sanctuary accounts show no drug expenditure (E016) turns bare silence into specific, published silence, though the inscriptions are unaudited here (R006); the processing window is narrow and unattested (C028); and the pharmacological payoff is doubtful (C006). No Eleusinian vessel has ever been analyzed (E009), so the claim is untested rather than refuted, hence weakly supported, not contradicted. Strongest opposing consideration: a secret additive from the sanctuary's own grain would leave neither textual nor accounting trace, so neither E015 nor E016 can exclude it; only residue chemistry targeting lysergamides (R001, R009) can decide. The pro-side records (E008, E010, E011) come from one interest network and count once.

No Eleusinian vessel has been tested (TIK-E009), so direct support is nil. Indirect support is the mechanism's feasibility (on TIK-C005) and one Iberian analogue (on TIK-C004). Against it stand the recipe's silence (TIK-E015), the audited accounts (TIK-E016), and the documented pattern of hardening possibility into fact (TIK-E019). TIK-E010 is provenance and TIK-E027 a funding tie.