ADVANCE AND RETREAT

The conquest of Guatemala was brutal, prolonged, and complex; fraught with intrigue and deception; confusing, perplexing, and daunting—and not at all clear-cut. An epic clash of cultures and an arresting saga of personalities and controversies, it is also a challenging topic of inquiry, primarily because of problems inherent in the source materials, which include an array of indigenous as well as Spanish documents. Whether of native or Hispanic concoction, these materials tend to be restrictive in their coverage of certain periods, places, and peoples; paltry or negligent in others; and at times so distorted or plagued with self-interest as to be of questionable utility, no matter the allowances we are disposed to make. Yet a general view of the conquest persists: an armed confrontation whose stakes were evident and whose outcome (Spanish victory) was decisive. A critical reappraisal is long overdue, one that calls for us to reexamine events and circumstances in the light not only of new evidence but also of a keener awareness of indigenous roles in the drama.

Episodes in the initial phase of invasion swayed its very nature from what it might otherwise have been. We focus in this chapter on what unfolded between December 1523, when Pedro de Alvarado left Mexico to spearhead the assault, and August 1524, when his hitherto allies, the native Kaqchikels, abandoned their capital at Iximché to stage a rebellion against the Spanish presence. Their revolt lasted almost six years and possibly flared up again in the 1530s. An alliance between the invaders and the indigenous peoples they encountered, so crucial a maneuver in the conquest of Mexico, proved more problematic to forge and maintain in Guatemala. While our narrative is concerned, for the most part, with chronological reconstruction and of a mere, though pivotal, eight-month period, we try not only to furnish essential information but also to step back and reflect on motives and rationale, for these are not always apparent and cannot be taken for granted. Though native involvement, which we examine at greater length in chapter 2, needs to be better appreciated and given at least equal weight with Spanish accounts in telling the tale, it is difficult not to ascribe to Alvarado's actions a definitive, formative cast, for more than any other key player he influenced how conquest was destined to unfold, leaving a legacy of oppression that not even his death could erase.

OPENING MOVES

Hernán Cortés informs us that he made contact with Maya peoples in Guatemala shortly after his victory in 1521 at Tenochtitlán, the seat of the vast Aztec or Mexica empire. He had heard of 'rich and strange lands and many different peoples,' who perhaps numbered as many as two million, that lay south of Mexico in regions beyond Aztec control but to which Tenochtitlán had commercial ties and harbored territorial aspirations. Sometime in 1522, Cortés arranged for two Spaniards to head there with 'some natives from the city of Tenochtitlán, and others from the province of Soconusco.' These Spaniards, via intermediaries, met with members of the two most powerful Maya nations in Guatemala, the K'iche's and the Kaqchikels. In the wake of this meeting, during which they learned of the defeat of the Aztecs, the Mayas reportedly sent emissaries back to Mexico to confer with Cortés. In the city of Tuxpán, Cortés informs us, he received 'as many as one hundred natives from the cities called Ucatlan [Utatlán] and Guatemala [Iximché], some sixty leagues beyond Soconusco, who offered themselves in the name of their leaders as vassals and subjects of Your Imperial Majesty.' Such rhetoric on the part of the Maya envoys may have been designed to slow the Spanish advance, or avoid being invaded altogether. In any event Cortés states that he hosted them cordially and sent them home with gifts for their lords.

Though his letters to King Charles V are detailed and expansive when viewed alongside Alvarado's missives—sketchy and slight by comparison—how much credence should we give Cortés's claim of having engaged in Mexico with ambassadors representing both K'iche' and Kaqchikel leadership? Jorge Luján Muñoz and Horacio Cabezas Carcache find it 'difficult to accept the veracity of indigenous representation before Cortés, since we only have his word for it.' They observe pertinently that 'neither of the two major native sources, the Popol Vuh and the Memorial de Sololá, mentions such a visitation.' Daniel Contreras concurs, stating that he finds it even more implausible that 'K'iche's and Kaqchikels would have gone together to parley with Cortés, since they were sworn enemies' of each other. Francis Polo Sifontes is prepared to accept only part of what Cortés has to say, claiming, 'we have good reason to believe that only Kaqchikels, not K'iche's, took part in the visitation.' Whether or not there was an exchange between Spaniards and Mayas at this juncture, Cortés ascertained that Indians from Guatemala were harassing his Mexican allies in Soconusco, who had already converted to Christianity and pledged allegiance to the Spanish Crown. The Kaqchikels, according to Polo Sifontes, 'told the Spaniards that they were not the ones carrying out the aggression, and indeed offered their apologies,' blaming the K'iche's. Seizing the opportunity to exert his authority, Cortés ordered his loyal captain, Pedro de Alvarado, to go to Soconusco, determine who was responsible, and deal with them.

Alvarado is said to have received a second friendly overture on the part of the Kaqchikels, ruled by the lords Cahí Ymox and Belehé Qat from their stronghold at Iximché. No rapprochement on the part of the K'iche's is recorded. According to Francisco López de Gómara, basing what he states on Pietro Martire d'Anghiera before him, the Kaqchikels sent 'five thousand men' to Alvarado to convince him of their loyal intentions, along with gifts of clothing, cacao, and provisions, as well as gold and jewels valued at some twenty thousand pesos. Adrián Recinos believes this show of solidarity, if it ever happened, to be exaggerated. Robert Carmack, however, notes that both Anghiera and López...