CHAPTER 7 MESOAMERICANS IN THE NEOCOLONIAL ERA 271sisted attempts by Spanish and Crown officials to force them to comply. Rebellion
against the reimposition of tributes became endemic throughout the highlands of
Guatemala during these years, and spread through El Salvador and Nicaragua.
The rebellions by Indians in Nicaragua were particularly threatening to Spanish
rule there. Between 1811 and 1812, bands of rebels numbering over 12,000 in num-
ber (mostly Subtiaba and Pipil Indians from León, Masaya, and Rivas, Nicaragua)
were able to temporarily seize the reins of local government from the ruling Spaniards
and creoles. The rebel leaders, among them several priests, formed more extended
but weaker alliances. The rebels armed themselves and demanded an end to such
hated colonial practices as tribute payment, forced labor, and slavery. The movement
was all but destroyed in 1811, however, when local creole collaborators jumped sides
and aided contingents of Spanish soldiers sent from Olancho (Honduras), San
Miguel (El Salvador), and Cartago (Costa Rica) to put down the rebellion. Never-
theless, led by a Subtiaba Indian priest, Tomás Ruiz, the Nicaraguan rebels partici-
pated in the so-called Belén “conspiracy” in Guatemala (1813), which was designed
to free their incarcerated comrades, initiate a colonywide military uprising, and de-
clare independence.
The Atanasio Tzul Rebellion. The Central American rebellion from the
independence period that perhaps has received most scholarly attention was
initiated just prior to independence from Spain by an Indian leader named
Atanasio Tzul, from Totonicapán, Guatemala. For details of the uprising, see Box
7.2; see also the map in Figure 7.1 for the location of places mentioned in
connection with the Tzul rebellion.
The Tzul rebellion has been largely discounted in scholarly discussions of Cen-
tral America’s independence movements. Some have argued that it had nothing to
do with independence from Spain but was merely another “colonial riot” against
abuses by the Spaniards and their creole collaborators. Even its nativistic features
have been denied, with the argument that Atanasio Tzul was only assuming the role
of the deposed regional Spanish authority and dramatizing his loyalty to the Span-
ish king by taking the crown of a Catholic saint (McCreery 1989). It has been noted
too that the rebellion was restricted to the Totonicapán area and hence should be
seen as the product of a colonial system that had forced the Indians into relatively
closed, isolated communities. These are all important points, and it must be con-
ceded that Tzul and his followers were heavily influenced by Spanish institutions,
did remain respectful of the Spanish Crown, and indeed were unable to marshal
enough broad support to keep the movement going for very long.
The Guatemalan historian Daniel Contreras (1951), however, has argued per-
suasively that the Tzul rebellion must be seen as part of the larger independence
movement of 1821. After all, he says, in their own way the Indians were struggling to
be liberated from the repression of the Spanish system and thus added their “grain”
to the success of the larger movement. He points out that the creole officials on the
scene considered the rebellion to be not a mere local riot but a true, premeditated
conspiracy that could easily become a general insurrection. Those creole officials