1638 Tipu rebellion
The 1638 Tipu rebellion was a widespread revolt of Mayan 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. Prelude. Prophecy. "K'atun 1 ahaw", the sixth "k'atun" of the short round of 15391796 (spanning thirteen "k'atuno'ob"), began on 6 June  1638. Mayan "chilamo'ob" (priests) prophesied the "k'atun" would usher in natural disaster and rebellion. The prophecy included– Section::::'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, destroyed the residents' religious artefacts. Hostilities. The district's "encomiendas" were reconsolidated in 1622, leading to significantly heavier taxation of its Mayan residents. Hispano-Mayan hostilities in the 17th century began in 1623, with massacres of Spanish soldiers, friars, and their Mayan servants and guides, at Nojpeten and Sacalum.This has been characterised as  a sharp departure from Mayan practice, as '[n]ot since 1546 had execution as a tool of [Mayan] rebellion on such a large scale been seen in Yucatan.' In 1637, Tipu sent an embassy to the "defensor de naturales" in Merida 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. Sometime during , 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 Mayan 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. 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. 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. Pirates are first thought to have entered the district in 1617, when an English crew raided Bacalar, abducting or impressing four "vecinos". 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. In 1637 and 1638, various Anglo-Dutch pirates were sighted cruising the Bay of Honduras, possibly reaching the district's waters . Incident. 1638. In the third quarter of 1638, Mayan 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. Tipu's advise (or threats) proved effective, as a quarter of the Mayan residents in hamlets near Tipu had (illicitly) fled by 20 September 1638. By 5 November 1638, a little under 200 of the district's circa 300 tributaries were allied with Tipu (having likewise fled there). 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). By the fourth week of September 1638, the "cabildo" and "vecinos" of Bacalar, with the help of Mayan residents of San Juan de Extramuros, were attempting to resettle Pacha, Yumpeten, Soite, Manan, and Xibun, all of which had likewise been deserted. 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. 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.' Aftermath. 1639. Prior to 15 February 1639, Francisco de Cárdenas Valencia, a secular friar, bishop 's vicar, and "benefice" in Sotuta, reported– That same year, the governor and the ecclesiastical "cabildo" of Merida sent Ambrosio de Figueroa, a secular friar, to the district of Bacalar, to entice Mayan 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. 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. Fuensalida and Estrada, with 21 Mayan 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 lead 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. 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. 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. 1643. On 5 March 1643, the bishop reported that eight "reducción" settlements (totalling some 300 Mayan families) had resettled in Tipu, leaving  only six "reducción" settlements (totalling under 150 families) remained loyal to the Spanish Crown. Legacy. Social. Shortly after 29 May 1652, Bacalar and the Mayan families still loyal to the villa were removed to Pacha, and in the 1660s still further inland to Chunhuhub. The villa's original site (on Lake Bacalar) was not resettled until the second quarter of 1727. Tipu and its allies did not assent to Spanish authority until the second or third quarter of 1695. Scholarly. Diego López de Cogolludo first brought the rebellion to light in 1688. 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.