Top Qs
Timeline
Chat
Perspective
Tipu rebellion
1638 Maya revolt in colonial Yucatan From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Remove ads
The Tipu rebellion was a widespread revolt of Maya residents in the municipio or district of Bacalar in the second half of 1638. Led by Tipu, a pre-Columbian town and the most significant reducción or encomienda settlement in the district, it resulted in the removal of Bacalar and subsequent collapse of Spanish power in the region, leading to a 57-year revival of the Postclassic state of Dzuluinicob, of which Tipu had been capital.[note 1][note 2]
Remove ads
Prelude
Summarize
Perspective
Prophecy
K'atun 1 ahaw, the sixth k'atun of the short round of 1539–1796 (spanning thirteen k'atuno'ob), began on 6 June 1638.[1] Maya chilamo'ob (priests) prophesied the k'atun would usher in natural disaster and rebellion.[2][note 3]
The prophecy included–
Hun ahaw katun / [...] / He ix bin tz'occebal u thanil e / Noh katun / Likom chan / Y etel ho tzuc chakan / Ti bateel / U chan katun / Hun ahau / Katun / Kakal / Moçon chac u cuch katun
Katun 1 Ahau / [...] / And that will be the ending of words: / The great war. / Risen will be the Chan / And the Tihosuco plain, / Who will fight / The Chan War / Of the 1 Ahau / Katun. / Fires / And hurricane rains are the burden of the katun.
—by chilam Balam of Chumayel, compiled by J. J. Hoíl, translated by M. S. Edmonson.[3][4][note 4][note 5]
'Idolatry'
During a 1619 misión to Peten Itza, Franciscan friars Juan de Orbita and Bartolomé de Fuensalida found Tipuans had reverted to pre-Columbian polytheism, which they swiftly punished, destroying the residents' religious artefacts.[5]
Hostilities
The district's encomiendas were reconsolidated in 1622, leading to significantly heavier taxation of its Maya residents.[6]
Hispano-Maya hostilities in the 17th century began in 1623, with massacres of Spanish soldiers, friars, and their Maya servants and guides, at Nojpeten and Sacalum.This has been characterised as a sharp departure from Maya practice, as '[n]ot since 1546 had execution as a tool of [Maya] rebellion on such a large scale been seen in Yucatan.'[7]
In 1637, Tipu sent an embassy to the defensor de naturales in Mérida to report their 'mistreatment' by their resident secular priest (Gregorio Marín de Aguilar) and the vecinos of Bacalar. The defensor informed the governor, who relieved Tipu's resident priest, and reprimanded the cabildo of Bacalar.[8][note 6]
Sometime during 17 May 1636 – 10 July 1638, Diego Zapata de Cárdenas, governor of colonial Yucatan, on the request of the defensor de naturales, sent two investigadores to Bacalar to investigate allegations of extortion (brought against the villa's vecinos of by the district's Maya residents) and to punish offenders. The investigadores were unable to proceed, however, as the vecinos seized and attempted to hang them in impromptu gallows set up in the villa's plaza. The investigadores fled before they could be hanged, bringing to an end any possible investigación of the villa by the provincial governor.[8]
In 1637, nearly all residents of Tipu, the largest reducción settlement in the district, (illicitly) deserted their town, (purportedly) fearing an oncoming aggressive campaign from Bacalar.[9][note 7]
Piracy
It has been suggested that Anglo-Dutch raids in the district of Bacalar likely encouraged the (illicit) desertion of coastal reducción settlements in favour of safer sites inland.[10][note 8]
Pirates are first thought to have entered the district in 1617, when an English crew raided Bacalar, abducting or impressing four vecinos.[11] In the 1630s, residents of colonial Honduras began (illicitly) trading with Dutch and English ships in earnest, and pirates began impressing or enslaving Amerindian residents of the Yucatan Peninsula and the Bay of Honduras.[12][13][14][15][16][17] In 1637 and 1638, various Anglo-Dutch pirates were sighted cruising the Bay of Honduras, possibly reaching the district's waters.[18][19][20]
Remove ads
Incident
Summarize
Perspective
1638
In the third quarter of 1638, Maya authorities at Tipu encouraged (or threatened) residents of various reducción or encomienda hamlets in the district of Bacalar to (illicitly) desert their settlements to join a (possibly armed) resistance to Bacalar-based from Tipu.[21][note 9] Tipu's advise (or threats) proved effective, as a quarter of the Maya residents in hamlets near Tipu had (illicitly) fled by 20 September 1638.[22] By 5 November 1638, a little under 200 of the district's circa 300 tributaries were allied with Tipu (having likewise fled there).[23]
In the third week of September 1638, Luis Sánchez de Aguilar, alcalde, with the procurador, and 16 vecinos, discovered that Chinam, Manan, and Zacatan, coastal reducción settlements, had been deserted. They captured four runaways from Chinam, and all runaways from Manan. These were detained (and whipped, despite promises to the contrary) at Bacalar. All were (forcibly) resettled in Tamalcab, a reducción settlement (nearer to Bacalar than Manan).[24]
By the fourth week of September 1638, the cabildo and vecinos of Bacalar, with the help of Maya residents of San Juan de Extramuros, were attempting to resettle Pacha, Yumpeten, Soite, Manan, and Xibun, all of which had likewise been deserted.[25]
In the fourth quarter of 1638, the governor supplied Bacalar with powder and ammunition, but not with troops, despite the cabildo's request for these. In addition, he requested Franciscan officials send three or four friars to the district to (peaceably) quell the rebellion. However, the Franciscan misión did not set out until 1642, and met with no success.[22][note 10]
On 5 November 1638, Luis Sánchez de Aguilar reported that their efforts had not met with much success, adding that 'right now the Indians are very bellicose.'[25]
Remove ads
Aftermath
Summarize
Perspective
1639
Prior to 15 February 1639, Francisco de Cárdenas Valencia, a secular friar, bishop's vicar, and benefice in Sotuta, reported–
[N]ews has come from Bacalar that those few towns which we have described [reducción settlements in the villa's district] had been going to the forests, encouraged and deceived by those barbarous infidels of the Tah Itzeas, becoming one with them, as a result of which [the district of] Bacalar will become more deserted and short of people.
That same year, the governor and the ecclesiastical cabildo of Mérida sent Ambrosio de Figueroa, a secular friar, to the district of Bacalar, to entice Maya residents to drop their resistance and resettle in their allotted reducción towns. Figueroa sent word to Tipu and its allies regarding his upcoming visit (and peaceful intentions), 'but the rebels made fun of [Figueroa's messengers] and threatened to kill them if they came back,' precluding the friar from reaching the district. However, Tipu indicated that they would meet with Franciscan friars, on the condition that the secular priest of Bacalar be replaced with a Franciscan one.[29]
1641
On 24 April 1641, the governor and bishop sent Bartolomé de Fuensalida, Juan de Estrada, Bartolomé de Becerril, and Martín Tejero (all Franciscans), with 500 pesos for a six-month (peaceful) reducción, and instructions to relieve Bacalar's secular priest of his post. At Bacalar, it was determined that Fuensalida and Estrada continue on to Tipu, that Becerril focus on coastal settlements, and that Tejero remain in the villa.[29]
Fuensalida and Estrada, with 21 Maya servants and guides, never made it to Tipu, despite their earnest endeavours. In May or June 1641, the friars reached the former site of Zaczuz (a reducción settlement near Tipu, which had been deserted), where they (unsuccessfully) negotiated for their reception at Tipu. On 2 July 1641, they were led to Hubelna (an unauthorised hamlet of former Zaczuz residents). On 3 July 1641, the friars were met by a Tipuan–Itzaen war party, who made it clear that the friars were not welcome in Tipu, whereupon the friars were (forcibly) escorted back towards Bacalar.[30][note 12] Fuensalida promptly reported their failure, advising the governor that a militarised reducción was the only viable option to quell the revolt. The governor recalled the friars, however, citing his lack of authority from the Spanish Crown for a military campaign.[31][note 13]
Bartolomé de Becerril had better luck in the coastal reducción settlements of the district, as he and Martín Tejero resettled four settlements on the Sittee River, the Monkey River, and a caye called Zula. Their luck proved fleeting, however, as piratical raids of the resettled hamlets in 1641 and 1642 convinced residents to, again, (illicitly) relocate further inland.[32][note 14][note 15]
1643
On 5 March 1643, the bishop reported that eight reducción settlements (totalling some 300 Maya families) had resettled in Tipu, leaving only six reducción settlements (totalling under 150 families) loyal to the Spanish Crown.[33][note 16]
Remove ads
Legacy
Summarize
Perspective
Social
Shortly after 29 May 1652, Bacalar and the Maya families still loyal to the villa were removed to Pacha, and in the 1660s still further inland to Chunhuhub.[34][35] The villa's original site (on Lake Bacalar) was not resettled until the second quarter of 1727.[36][37][38] Tipu and its allies did not assent to Spanish authority until the second or third quarter of 1695.[39][40][41]
Scholarly
Diego López de Cogolludo first brought the rebellion to light in 1688.[42][43]
Qvietos auian estado los Indios desta tierra, hasta los tiempos en que voy refiriendo, en que por nuestros pecados, ò por lo que la diuina Magestad sabe, permitiò el alçamiento de los Indios de BaKhalàl, y toda su jurisdicion, que hasta oy año de cinquenta y seis estàn sin auer buelto à la obediencia de la Iglasia, y de el Rey, como deben hazerlo. Por el año de treinta y seis començaron à conmouerse aquellos Indios, huyendose algunos de sus pueblos, y otros que con ellos estaban en los de esta Prouincia à los montes de Tepù, que (como se ha dicho) son los mas cercanos à los gentiles Ytzaex. Fuesse esto continuando, hasta que el año de treinta y nueue negaron de el todo la obediencia à Dios, y al Rey, y apostatando miserablemente de nuestra Santa Fè Catolica, bolvieron al bomito de la idolatrias, y abominaciones de sus antepassados, ultrajando las imagenes, y quemando los Templos à la Magestad Diuina consagrados, y despues sus Pueblos, huyendose à los montes retirados.
The Indians of this area had been quiet up until the period that I am going to describe, in which, because of our sins or some other reason that only God knows, He permitted the uprising of the Indians of Bacalar and all the areas under its jurisdiction. Even today, in 1656, they have not returned to the obedience that they owe the church and the king. By 1636 they began to cause problems, with some of them leaving their towns, along with some of this province, going to the forests of Tipu, which ... are the closest to the gentile Itzas. This continued until 1638, when they completely refused to obey God and the king, horribly rejecting our holy faith.
It was noted in the 1639 manuscript by Francisco de Cárdenas Valencia, first published in 1937, and rigorously explored by Grant D. Jones's archival work, published in 1989.[45][46]
Remove ads
Notes
- The Yucatecan Mayan orthography in this article follows that of Barrera Vásquez et al. 1980, pp. 41a–44a. At least two other orthographic systems exist (Lehmann 2018, sec. 2.1, 3), neither of which is used in this article. Accordingly, k'atun and ahaw are preferred over several variations thereof, per Barrera Vásquez et al. 1980, pp. 4, 385–386.
- Details of the rebellion and its aftermath remain unclear, as extant records are poor, and no records regarding Bacalar during November 6, 1638 – March 4, 1643 have survived (or been discovered) (Jones 1989, p. 191).
- The short round's k'atuno'ob were– (Sharer & Traxler 2006, pp. 779–784).
- This passage may be alternatively translated as–Hun ahaw katun [...] he ix bin tz'occebal u thanil e noh katun likom chan y etel ho tzuc chakan ti bateel u chan katun hun ahau katun kakal moçon chac u cuch katunKatun 1 Ahau [...] This shall be the end of its prophecy: there is a great war. The Chan[s] shall rise up in war with the five divisions of Chakan, an army of Chan[s] in Katun 1 Ahau. A parching whirlwind storm is the charge of the katun.
—by chilam Balam of Chumayel, compiled by J. J. Hoíl, translated by R. L. Roys (Roys & Hoíl 1967, pp. xxx, 157, Jones 1989, p. 319, item no. 2).
- It has been suggested that–
- the prophesied Chan War was to be centred near Tihosuco (Edmonson & Hoíl 1986, pp. 208, footnote no. 4789),
- Chakan is meant as plain (Edmonson & Hoíl 1986, pp. 213, footnote no. 4944),
- Chakan is meant as a reference to the eponymous ch'ibal or noble house in the Peten Itza kingdom (Jones 1989, p. 319, item no. 2),
- Chan is meant as a reference to the eponymous ch'ibal or noble house in the Peten Itza kingdom (Jones 1989, p. 319, item no. 2).
- Marín de Aguilar had served as the district's secular priest since 1632 (Jones 1989, p. 321, item no. 30).
- In 1637, the governor was informed by Bacalar that residents of Tipu had rebelled, disclaiming their obedience to the Spanish crown. As there was a Tipuan embassy in Mérida at the time, the governor send them to Tipu with advice to the batab and principal inhabitants regarding the grave consequences of such rebellion. Tipu responded [in 1637 or 1638] 'with great submission,' informing the governor that residents had fled for fear of aggression from Bacalar, but that the batab, his lieutenant, and an alcalde, had remained in town, and that they would endeavour to entice the deserters back to town (Jones 1989, pp. 205–206).
Complicating our understanding of the period [1638–1642] are the poorly understood effects of increasing depredations of foreign pirates along the eastern coasts [of the Yucatan peninsula, including the district of Bacalar], which certainly would have stimulated coastal Mayas to seek refuge in interior locations around Tipu. These depredations, in combination with independence movements at Tipu, had devastating implications for the villa of Bacalar [...].
— Jones 1989, pp. 191–192
- On 10 July 1638, Diego Zapata de Cárdenas, Marquis of Santo Floro and Governor of colonial Yucatan, informed Philip IV of Spain 'that ever since he had been in office [17 May 1636] he had received petitions from the defensor de naturales on behalf of the Indians of the [district of the] villa of Bacalar complaining about its Spaniards, mulattos, and mestizos [who often] extorted the Indians.' (Jones 1989, p. 205). On 20 September 1638, Luís Sánchez de Aguilar, member of the cabildo of Salamanca de Bacalar, reported intelligence of these events to Diego Zapata de Cárdenas, Governor of colonial Yucatan, saying,
[Tipuan authorities advised residents of reducción or encomienda settlements in the district of Bacalar that] [t]hey were to give obedience to their king and wished them to abandon their town, saying that if they did not do so all would die and be finished, because at such a time the Itzas [military of the Peten Itza kingdom] would come to kill them and there would be many deaths, and hurricanes would flood the land.
(Jones 1989, pp. 189, 319)— 20 September 1638, cabildo to governor, translated by Grant D. Jones.
- It has been suggested that the governor did not wish to provide a military solution to what the Spanish Crown deemed a problem properly solved by (peaceful) religious persuasion (Jones 1989, p. 213).
- The Cárdenas Valencia manuscript (in Cárdenas Valencia 1937) was written during February 8, 1638 – February 15, 1639 (Adams 1945, pp. 26–27).
- The party first reached 'the hamlet where Chantome had been' (a cacao orchard on the Belize River, southwest of the New River Lagoon). There, the Fuensalida–Estrada party were met by Pedro Noh (batab of Holpatin, a Tipuan ally), his sons, and six other former residents of Holpatin, all of whom 'were painted and had allowed their hair to grow long as a sign of their rebel state.' These gifted the friars a wild fowl, which the friars' Maya guides informed them was a portent of war. The Noh party guided (or escorted) the friars' party to Zaczuz. There, the former taunted (or threatened) the latter's Maya guides, causing 17 of them to retreat. The friars and their remaining four companions were hosted by Francisco Yam, ‘’batab’’ of Zaczuz, while the Noh party negotiated the friars’ reception with Tipuan authorities. A Tipuan party of a dozen, led by Gaspar Chuc, a military captain, met the friars at Zaczuz, informing them they were not welcome in Tipu. The friars, however, convinced Chuc to entice the Tipuan authorities to receive them. Chuc seemed to oblige them, but apparently reneged on his promise, as the friars were left stranded in Zaczuz.
On 2 July 1642, the friars' party were led to Hubelna (an unauthorised settlement of former Zaczuz residents, three leagues distant, on a creek known as Yaxteel Ahau [possibly Roaring Creek]) by their host, Francisco Yam. The friars and their four Maya companions spent the night at Hubelna. Tipuan guests (whom Yam had prior invited), and at least some of Hubelna's residents, spent that night 'dancing and drunkenly worshipping their idols.' On discovering this 'idolatry,' Fuensalida asked that Yam gather all residents to hear the governor's and bishop's letters (promising them amnesty and a sizeable tax break, though requiring submission 'to the authority of the church and the governor'). Yam complied, and an audience gathered to hear Fuensalida, but the friar's message was not well-received, and residents silently trickled out towards the end.
The dawn of 3 July 1642, a war party (including Itzaen soldiers) awoke the friars, announcing 'May God protect you. Your time has come, grandfather.' The friars and one of their companions (three were elsewhere) were detained at this point. The military captain announced, 'Let the governor come. Let the king come. Let the Spanish come. We are ready to fight them. Now go and tell them.' Some Itzaen soldiers further threaten to kill Fuensalida 'because he and Father Orbita had [during a prior misión] destroyed the Itzas' idol Tzimin Chac ... and thereby killed their god.' Upon hearing these threats, the friars' companion asked to be killed in Fuensalida's stead, but was rebutted by the captain, who said, 'Don't fear. We don't have to kill you, but we must kill your companion [Fuensalida] because he killed our god.' During the friars' detention, the party searched their belongings, destroying all religious artefacts they found, 'saying a thousand blasphemies that are too horrible to mention as they broke [a crucifix].' This done, the friars and their companions were escorted to Zaczuz, from where they retreated to Bacalar.
(Jones 1989, pp. 217–222) - Both Bartolomé de Fuensalida and Juan de Estrada fell ill during their misión to Tipu. Estrada never recovered, and died in Mérida in 1646 (cf previous citation).
- In 1641, Becerril baptised, catechised, and settled (some) runaways from Campin in Soite and Cehake (reducción settlements on the Sittee River). Tejero settled runaways from Manan in Zula (a caye which the runaways chose, given that Manan had prior been flooded by a storm). Soite and Cehake were raided by Dutch pirates during Tejero's misión (who further detained the friar and a vecino accompanying him).
In 1642, Tejero baptised, catechised, married, and settled 73 runaways from Campin in Campin itself (a reducción settlement, possibly on the Monkey River). Campin was likewise sacked by pirates shortly after Tejero's departure.
(Jones 1989, pp. 224–226) - It has been suggested that this was due to (i) Manche Ch'ol settlements being outside Tipu's sphere of influence (as some of the coastal reducción settlements in the district were majority Manche Ch'ol, as opposed to the Yucatecan–Mopan majority in Tipu), (ii) coastal settlements being too far removed from Tipu to mount any significant resistance (Jones 1989, p. 224).
- Intelligence attributed to the governor in Jones 1989, p. 210, but attributed to the bishop in Jones 1989, p. 226 and Jones 1989, p. 321, item no. 36.
Remove ads
Citations
References
Wikiwand - on
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Remove ads