Repensando a San Simón, el sincretismo y la autoridad antropológica
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The tradition of San Simón in Guatemala has long garnered considerable interest among foreign and national academics, tourists, and Guatemalans in general from a range of backgrounds. Many, though not all, are drawn to the ambiguity and multiple identities often attributed to this deity, including associations with Pedro de Alvarado and Judas Iscariot as well as autochthonous figures such as the Maya deity Mam or other figures from Indigenous history and culture. In this article, based primarily on ethnographic research conducted since 1994, I trace opinions and assessments concerning San Simón, from a range of interlocutors, and consider how these have developed over time. I argue that academics especially need to rethink the concept of syncretism as we go about identifying and interpreting cases of “religious mixture”, noting that considerable reflexivity is required when applying thisterm. For many indigenous Guatemalans, especially at the community level, little if any contradiction or ambiguity is expressed regarding the identity(s) of this deity, which leads to the question “syncretic for whom”? That said, others, especially those involved (often beyond the local level) in the promotion and institutionalization of Maya Spirituality, may work to establish a more stable Maya pedigree for this tradition. The way these various points of view are expressed and placed in dialog with each other speaks to a dynamism and creativity which is typical of Maya culture at present and through time.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".