Oxford Handbooks Online: Population Decline During and After Conquest

Population Decline during and after Conquest
Oxford Handbooks Online

Rebecca Storey
The Oxford Handbook of Mesoamerican Archaeology
Edited by Deborah L. Nichols
Print Publication Date: Sep 2012 Subject: Archaeology, Archaeology of Mesoamerica, Historical
Archaeology
Online Publication Date: Nov DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195390933.013.0069
2012
Abstract and Keywords
Two big controversies continue to be debated about what happened to Native Americans when Europeans arrived
in the Western Hemisphere to conquer and colonize. The first controversy is over how many people were present
and thus what was the scale of the depopulation. The second controversy is over what caused the depopulation.
Most researchers agree that there are two main culprits: the introduction of new diseases from the Old World and
the stresses caused by conquest and colonization. This article first looks at the evidence for the pre-contact
population of Mesoamerica. Then, it discusses the casualties of conquest. The important controversy over the
causes of depopulation after conquest is then investigated in depth. Research on this subject is still ongoing.
Keywords: Native Americans, colonization, depopulation, Mesoamerica
TWO big controversies continue to be debated about what happened to Native Americans when Europeans arrived
in the Western Hemisphere to conquer and colonize. The Columbian Quincentenary in 1992 was a spur to
investigation and new perspectives. Evidence that this encounter was unfavorable to the Native Americans is
strong. The depopulation and disappearance of groups was noted by many European observers for several
centuries after contact. The scale of this loss depends on the size of that population before contact. Thus, the first
controversy is over how many people were present and thus what was the scale of the depopulation. If there were
many people present, then the scale of the loss is horrific. If the population was relatively small, the depopulation,
while tragic, does not seem as unprecedented. Researchers on the issue fall into High Counters (Henige 1998),
those who might be called Low Counters, and those who literally try to find a happy medium. Each position has its
own rationale and has used Mesoamerica as a case study.
The second controversy is over what caused the depopulation. Most researchers agree that there are two main
culprits: the introduction of new diseases from the Old World and the stresses caused by conquest and
colonization. The controversy is which was the more damaging. It seems a little insensitive to argue about such
things; no matter what the cause was, human beings suffered and died. However, the encounter of the Old and
New Worlds, beginning in 1492, was one of the most important meetings of humans who had no previous
knowledge of each (p. 909) other. Understanding what happened and why is important to knowing how the
history of Mesoamerica and its modern nations unfolded.
This article will first look at the evidence for the pre-contact population of Mesoamerica. Then, the casualties of
conquest will be discussed. The important controversy over the causes of depopulation after conquest will be
investigated in depth. Research on this subject is still ongoing.
Mesoamerica on the Eve of the Spanish Conquest
Page 1 of 7
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford
Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Universiteit Leiden - LUMC; date: 09 October 2015
It really is a “numbers game.” The only real evidence is archaeological, in the number and density of settlements in
the Late Postclassic. There has not been found, and probably will not be, a single number from a Pre-Columbian
text about any population. One reason for revisions to the population size in 1492 or 1519 is that as new
archaeological information and context become available, there is more with which to work. However, the
translation of archaeological evidence into population numbers is not simple; all ways require assumptions (Hassan
1981). Mesoamerica is fortunate to also have some ethnohistorical information as well. However, it seems to come
down to the philosophy and intuitions of individual researchers.
Earlier in the twentieth century, the estimates for Mexico at contact were 3.2 million (Kroeber 1934) and Rosenblat
(1954) at 4.5 million. Then in the 1960s, the estimates jumped to 25 million (Borah and Cook 1963) and Dobyns
(1966) at 30–37.5 million in central Mexico alone. While more recent estimates of central Mexico are at 16 million
(Whitmore 1992) and 17.2 (Denevan 1992), these are definitely higher than the original estimates. What changed?
Whether one believes the Pre-Columbian populations were few or many seems to be affected by opinions on how
complex or “civilized” Pre-Columbian societies were and how devastating European conquest and colonization
were (Alchon 2003). Mesoamerica definitely had complex, hierarchical societies, so some dense populations and
significant numbers of people would have been present.
Central Mexico has been the most common area for estimating the pre-contact population. The most famous is
Borah and Cook's (1963) estimate of over 25 million, which has been accepted but also severely criticized. Using
pre-conquest tribute lists (post-conquest copies) and other documents, they calculated the number of tributaries in
central Mexico. For total population, one multiplies that figure by a probable average family size (4.5 people) and
then adds the proportion exempt from tribute (35–40 percent). However, the relationship between Aztec tribute and
population is rather tenuous, because there is no evidence that such tribute was based on the number of
taxpayers in a province; it was levied on conquered rulers (p. 910) and how they collected it is unknown
(Sanders 1976). The exempt proportion also seems inflated. Borah and Cook pile assumption on assumption and
have received more support than warranted by any evidence (Henige 1998).
Sanders (1976; Sanders et al. 1979) criticized Borah and Cook but also did his own calculations based on
documentary and archaeological evidence, especially for the Basin of Mexico. He began with numbers for 1568,
the first reliable census evidence, and then calculated a depopulation ratio back to 1519 for an estimate of 1–1.2
million for the basin, and 2.6–3.1 million for the basin and adjacent areas. He also has archaeological evidence
from the detailed survey of the basin (Sanders et al. 1979). The Aztec period had 1,636 sites, compared to only
398 the period before, indicating a dense settlement. Using artifact density and size of settlements, the calculation
was 1–1.2 million at contact, very similar to his documentary estimate. Using Sanders's estimates, Denevan (1976)
calculated a figure of 11.4 million for central Mexico (45 percent of Borah and Cook's figure).
Whitmore (1992) also tried to calculate the basin population in 1519 but used computer simulation based on
censuses in 1530s and 1560s, while modeling fertility, mortality, and migration based on epidemiological models of
morbidity and mortality for newly introduced diseases. He ran the model multiple times, varying the demographic
and epidemiological parameters, and then compared with the historical data and what seemed probable. His figure
was 1.5 million for the basin in 1519, close to Sanders, and 16 million for all of Mexico (64 percent of Borah and
Cook's figure).
The rest of Mesoamerica (the Yucatán Peninsula and northern Central America) has received less attention. That is
because the dense population is thought, on archaeological grounds and perhaps unjustly, to be present during
the earlier Classic Maya times rather than in the early sixteenth century. Estimates here also vary widely, from
800,000 to 8 million for just the Yucatán (Denevan 1976). Frederic Lange (1971) used documentary evidence to
count the large Maya cities, mostly coastal, for an estimate of almost 2.3 million for the northern Yucatán. An
estimate for Guatemala (Lovell and Swezey 1982) was calculated three ways: by using a tribute assessment from
the mid-sixteenth century, by using the average population density as calculated for central Mexico, and by
aggregating available population data for subregions. This latter calculation is the most reasonable method and
yields a figure of 2 million. Chiapas (275,000–200,000) and Soconusco (80,000–90,000) are based on similar
methods, such as the use of early tribute documents and information on settlements and population from archives
(Lovell and Lutz 1995). If all are added together, including that for Yucatán from Lange, the estimate is 4,665,000.
As Lovell and Lutz (1995) note, this puts the estimates among the high numbers, but not at the extreme high end.
The accumulating evidence that this part of Mesoamerica had complex, hierarchical societies at contact continues
Page 2 of 7
the trend toward higher population estimates.
The recent totals for Mesoamerica seem to range from 16 million to near 30 million, a rejection of the earlier small
estimates. As Henige (1998) reminds (p. 911) us, many sources have not been critically evaluated. Much more
archaeological research is also needed.
Casualties during the Conquest
The question of how much credence should be given to early accounts by the Spanish underlies the discussion of
mortality during the conquest. Undoubtedly, the Spaniards were able to take over Mesoamerica with relatively few
Spanish soldiers: the interest is in the details. Several accounts by eyewitness conquistadors contain estimations
of the sizes of the armies faced as well as the sizes of towns and provinces. There are a few accounts by native
Mesoamericans, mostly of the conquest of central Mexico, but these were written long after the events and are
“sketchier” in detail (Hassig 2006). It is generally agreed that the Spanish accounts were written for self-serving
reasons (Hassig 2006; Henige 1998). Thus, the numbers of warriors and sizes of settlements encountered come
mostly from the Spaniards (and also influenced the estimation of pre-contact numbers), and there is no reason to
think that any numbers were meant to be accurate, especially about native demography.
For example, Cortés faced and defeated armies at Tlaxcala he estimated to be at “more than 149,000” with only a
few hundred Spaniards (Cortés 1988). Díaz del Castillo (1982) argued that such numbers are inflated; they faced
only 30,000, 40,000, or 50,000. Henige (1998) questioned whether any of these numbers were reasonable or were
just common battlefield inflations for the glory of the teller. After the conquest of Tenochtitlan, Cortés had nine
hundred surviving Spaniards (Hassig 2006). However, “what made the conquest of Mexico possible was not the
Spaniards’ military might, which was always modest, but the assistance of tens and even hundreds of thousands of
Indian allies—laborers, porters, cooks, and especially soldiers” (Hassig 2006: 175). Cortés's success was due to
“the pivotal role . . . played by his two hundred thousand Indian allies, even though they went virtually
unacknowledged and certainly unrewarded” (Hassig 2006: 178). While Hassig does depend on Cortés's account,
exactly how these numbers were determined is not clear. More investigation of native archives and other Spanish
sources resulted in a calculation of circa 24,000 native allies at the siege of Tenochtitlan (Oudijk and Restall 2007),
a distinctly lower number. While Hassig (2006) does give credit, as do others, to the Spanish advantage in horses
and metal technology, they were highly outnumbered by their allies and their adversaries. The native allies
prevented the Spaniards from being overwhelmed. The bulk of the warrior casualties, as well as the number of
residents wounded and killed by the attacks on settlements, would have been borne by the natives. There is just
no information presently available to allow a quantification of the losses, but it probably was significant for some
groups.
(p. 912) After the Fall of Tenochtitlan and the Colonial Period
Throughout the sixteenth century, the Spanish noted the loss of the native population, which they depended on for
labor and taxes. The scale of this loss and its causes are still debated. The historical consensus is that the
conquest and colonization of Mesoamerica were made possible by the introduction of new epidemic diseases to
“virgin-soil” populations (e.g., Crosby 1972; Diamond 1997). While Pre-Columbian Mesoamerica certainly was not
free of disease or famines (Verano and Ubelaker 1992; Alchon 2003), the appearance of smallpox, measles,
influenza, and other infectious diseases wreaked havoc on natives and their societies who had no experience, and
thus no immunity, against these illnesses. In such “virgin-soil” epidemics, all ages are infected and mortality is
high, historically, around 30–40 percent for smallpox and 10–20 percent for measles (Whitmore 1992). Some have
felt that the mortality in Mesoamerica would be higher, because everyone would be ill, and nurses and cooks would
be lacking. There were as well the societal disruptions caused by the Spanish (Dobyns 1993).
The first Old World disease introduced to Mesoamerica was smallpox, in 1520, during the conquest, documented
by various eyewitness accounts. The outbreak definitely interfered with the defense of Tenochtitlan (Hassig 2006;
McCaa 1995), and various sources and researchers claim that half the population of the basin and adjacent areas
died during this epidemic (e.g., Dobyns 1993). There are revisionists who claim that it was only mild smallpox with
effects similar to cases in contemporary Europe (Brooks 1993). McCaa (1995) has investigated the sources and
found that the mortality is not recoverable, whether it was 10 or 50 percent but it was a significant epidemic and
Page 3 of 7
more serious than any in Europe at that time. He preferred a probable 30 percent loss, similar to historical
examples. The sixteenth-century accounts also point to epidemics in 1545–1546 and 1576–1577 as more deadly,
but which are hard to diagnose (McCaa 1995; Prem 1991). These latter were described as having profuse bleeding
as in a hemorrhagic fever. Again, mortality rates are calculated as 50–70 percent (Prem 1991), but no real count is
possible.
The real controversy about the role of disease is not that new diseases were introduced, but how widespread their
effects turned out to be. Were they only significant when there was sustained contact with Europeans, or did they
spread fast and wide to other populations, causing depopulation before any European observer was present? The
pre-contact High Counters favor the former, so that the introduction of smallpox, first in Hispaniola in 1518 and then
Mexico in 1520, became a continentwide pandemic with very high mortality (Dobyns 1993). Thus, no European
ever saw how dense the pre-contact Mesoamerican population was, and the colonization was already made of
smaller and weaker societies. How important these undocumented disease epidemics were affects the views of the
size of the pre-contact population and the course of conquest. Again, archaeology (p. 913) would be of help, but
the problems of coverage and the need for finer chronological control do not yet allow many areas of Mesoamerica
to provide either positive or negative evidence. There is no documentary or archaeological evidence used to show
a clear history of a pre-contact epidemic (Henige 1998). It is not that smallpox could have preceded the Spaniards;
it is just that no one has really proved it. For example, the Cakchiquel Maya recorded a disease with high mortality
five years before the Spanish entered (Lovell 1991), although diagnosis of the disease is unclear, let alone the
actual amount of population loss.
Perhaps the most contentious part of the High Counters’ reconstruction of Mesoamerican population dynamics is
the depopulation ratio, which Dobyns (1993) had put at 90–95 percent for the Americas based partly on central
Mexico, a terrible demographic catastrophe. Whitmore's (1992) simulations for the Basin of Mexico try to test what
might be plausible depopulation patterns, using epidemiological and demographic modeling. His various simulations
are compared with historical estimates, and he found that a depopulation ratio of near 90 percent is best almost a
century after the conquest, with higher ones being unrealistic. However, one cannot really generalize this to all of
Mesoamerica. One cannot really be sure how far the 1520 smallpox spread outside the Basin of Mexico, for
example. Differences in settlement patterns and types, population densities, ecological constraints, social
complexity, and frequency of contact are all likely to have influenced depopulation ratios. Too often, the Basin of
Mexico is taken as the measure for all of Mesoamerica.
Although newly introduced Old World diseases are generally implicated as the main cause of Native American
depopulation, recent researchers are implicating a wider variety of causes.
There is agreement that a demographic catastrophe occurred and that epidemic disease was a dominant
factor. . . . But the role of disease cannot be understood without taking to account the harsh treatment
(forced migration, enslavement, abusive labor demands, and exorbitant tribute payments) and ecological
devastation that accompanied Spanish colonization. Killing associated with war and conquest was clearly
a secondary factor. (McCaa 1995: 429)
Whitmore (1992) also observed that famine added to the mortality because of disruptions to normal agricultural
activities caused by widespread morbidity (especially if everyone is ill at harvest time) and labor demands. Alchon
(2003) also wanted a multicausal explanation, that the depopulation of the Americas cannot be understood if
disease is not coupled with the other effects of colonization. Her point is to show that Native Americans reacted to
disease and other disruptions in a similar fashion as in the Old World. What is distinctive about the Mesoamerican
case is the extent of population loss and the long time it took to begin to recover. Usually, a population recovers
after the introduction of a new disease, but, here, with the introduction of so many new diseases within a century,
the population never had time to rebound significantly. Added to the disruptions caused by the Spanish focus on
native labor to extract and control the resources, the loss of native (p. 914) lands to the Spaniards, and lower
economic opportunities for survivors, the Native Americans, in essence, lost most of their social, political, and
economic institutions, a further hindrance to demographic recovery (Alchon 2003). Of course, eventually, the
surviving Native American populations began to grow again, until some now number several million in the twenty-
first century.
Understanding Pre-Columbian and colonial Mesoamerica population dynamics is a work in progress. The outlines of
Page 4 of 7
what happened do seem to be clear: a significant population was present, especially where there were complex,
hierarchical societies. This population was then severely impacted by European diseases, conquest warfare, and
Spanish colonial practices. It only took about a century after contact for much of the native population to be gone.
The quantification of such terms as “significant,” “severely impacted,” and “depopulation ratio” is questionable. At
this point, most researchers have simplistically used preconceptions of large, and sometimes small, populations to
guide their choice of sources and numeric multipliers, too often unquestioningly using the previous estimates of
High Counters (Henige 1998). The very high estimates of the pre-contact population and very high depopulation
ratios have fallen out of favor. Better estimates will come from careful study and criticism of documents, the finding
of new documents (McCaa 1995), and more complete archaeological surveys from many parts of Mesoamerica.
Sanders's careful critique of documentary sources and archaeological data (1976; Sanders et al. 1979) provided a
population estimate in the Basin of Mexico in 1568 (earliest good census information) at 404,000 to 407,000. The
population at 1519 is estimated at 1–1.2 million. Taking these figures, the population was reduced to between 33–
37 percent of the pre-contact size after just about fifty years. As several researchers have pointed out (Henige
1998; Alchon 2003), to argue about whether 66, 75, or 95 percent were lost is unimportant. The post-conquest
demographic history of Mesoamerica is a tragic one, and it has provided evidence of how new contact between
humans can have terrible consequences.
References
Alchon, Suzanne A. 2003. A Pest in the Land: New World Epidemics in a Global Perspective. University of New
Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Borah, Woodrow W., and Sherbourne F. Cook. 1963. The Aboriginal Population of Central Mexico on the Eve of
the Spanish Conquest. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Brooks, Francis J. 1993. Revising the Conquest of Mexico: Smallpox, Sources, and Populations. Journal of
Interdisciplinary History, 24:1–29.
Cortés, Hernan. 1988. Cartas de relación. Cisalpino-Goliardica, Milan.
Crosby, Alfred W. 1972. The Columbian Exchange: Biological and Cultural Consequences of 1492. Greenwood,
Westport, Connecticut.
Denevan, William M. 1976. The Native Population of the Americas in 1492. University of Wisconsin Press,
Madison.
(p. 915) Denevan, William M. 1992. The Native Population of the Americas in 1492. 2nd ed. University of
Wisconsin Press, Madison.
Diamond, Jared M. 1997. Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. W. W. Norton, New York.
Díaz del Castillo, Bernal. 1982. Historía verdadera de la conquista de la Nueva España. Instituto Gonzalo
Fernández de Oviedo, Madrid.
Dobyns, Henry F. 1966. Estimating Aboriginal American Population: An Appraisal of Techniques with a New
Hemispheric Estimate. Current Anthropology 7:395–416, 425–349.
Dobyns, Henry F. 1993. Disease Transfer at Contact. Annual Review of Anthropology, 22:273–291.
Hassan, Fekri A. 1981. Demographic Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.
Hassig, Ross. 2006. Mexico and the Spanish Conquest. 2nd ed. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Henige, David P. 1998. Numbers from Nowhere: The American Indian Contact Population Debate. University of
Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Kroeber, Alfred L. 1934. Native American Population. American Anthropologist, 36:1–25.
Page 5 of 7
Lange, Frederic W. 1971. Una reevaluación de la población del norte de Yucatán en el tiempo del contacto
español: 1528. América Indígena, 31:117–139.
Lovell, W. George. 1991. Disease and Depopulation in Early Colonial Guatemala. In “Secret Judgments of God”:
Old World Disease in Colonial Spanish America, edited by N. David Cook and W. George Lovell, pp. 49–83.
University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Lovell, W. George, and C. Lutz. 1995. Demography and Empire: A Guide to the Population History of Spanish
Central America, 1500–1821. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.
Lovell, W. George, and William R. Swezey. 1982. The Population of Southern Guatemala at Spanish Contact.
Canadian Journal of Anthropology 3(1):71–84.
McCaa, Robert. 1995. Spanish and Nahuatl Views on Smallpox and Demographic Catastrophe in Mexico. Journal of
Interdisciplinary History, 25:397–431.
Oudijk, Michel R., and Matthew Restall. 2007. Mesoamerican Conquistadors in the Sixteenth Century. In Matthew
Laura E., and Michel R. Oudijk, Indian Conquistadors: Indigenous Allies in the Conquest of Mesoamerica, pp. 28–
64. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Prem, Hans J. 1991. Disease Outbreaks in Central Mexico during the Sixteenth Century. In “Secret Judgments of
God”: Old World Disease in Colonial Spanish America, edited by N. David Cook and W. G. Lovell, pp. 20–48.
University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Rosenblat, Angel. 1954. La población indígena y el mestizaje en América. Editorial Nova, Buenos Aires.
Sanders, William T. 1976. The Population of the Central Mexican Symbiotic Region, the Basin of Mexico, and the
Teotihuacan Valley in the Sixteenth Century. In The Native Population of the Americas in 1492, edited by W. M.
Denevan, pp. 85–151. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.
Sanders, William T., Jeffrey Parsons, and Robert S. Santley. 1979. The Basin of Mexico: Ecological Processes in the
Evolution of a Civilization. Academic Press, New York.
Verano, John W., and Douglas H. Ubelaker, eds. 1992. Disease and Demography in the Americas. Smithsonian
Institution, Washington, DC.
Whitmore, Thomas M. 1992. Disease and Death in Early Colonial Mexico: Simulating Amerindian Depopulation.
Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.
Rebecca Storey
Rebecca Storey (University of Houston)
Page 6 of 7
Page 7 of 7

Oxford Handbooks Online: Population Decline During and After Conquest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Oxford Handbooks Online: Population Decline During and After Conquest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Population Decline during and after Conquest

Oxford Handbooks Online

Population Decline during and after Conquest

Abstract and Keywords

Keywords: Native Americans, colonization, depopulation, Mesoamerica

Mesoamerica on the Eve of the Spanish Conquest

the trend toward higher population estimates.

Casualties during the Conquest

Cortés, Hernan. 1988. Cartas de relación. Cisalpino-Goliardica, Milan.

Hassan, Fekri A. 1981. Demographic Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.

Kroeber, Alfred L. 1934. Native American Population. American Anthropologist, 36:1–25.

You might also like