In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

37 C H A P T E R 4 Interpreting the Evidence N o one will ever know exactly how many people there were in the Philippines when the Spanish arrived or the extent to which the Filipino population declined in the subsequent two centuries. However, through a careful analysis of the evidence available, the demographic history of the Philippines can be discerned in sufficient detail to enable an assessment of the impact of Spanish colonial rule and to make comparisons between population trends in the islands with other parts of the Southeast Asian archipelago. Unfortunately there are no Filipino written records dating from pre-Spanish times, while Chinese sources, which have been used so effectively by William Henry Scott to throw light on pre-Spanish Filipino society and its contacts with China,1 have so far yielded little information of direct demographic value. By far the most important sources for the early demographic history of the Philippines are Spanish colonial documents, which are diverse and relatively abundant but pose considerable difficulties of interpretation.2 However, it can be aided by corroborative evidence drawn from colonial ethnographic accounts and archaeology. Early Spanish Colonial Sources Spanish colonial sources for the demographic history of the Philippines range from letters and memorials written by the first explorers, conquistadors, and priests, to later administrative reports by secular and ecclesiastical officials, including fiscal materials and censuses, as well as records of vital events kept by parish priests. Much of the evidence for the pre-Spanish population of the Philippines and for demographic change in the early colonial period is drawn from the observations of the first conquistadors, missionaries, and officials, as well as from attempts to establish effective control of the islands through the encomienda and the extension of missionary activity. Available evidence from before about 1750 is fragmentary, giving rise to difficulties of interpretation and debate. Although documentary evidence generally increases over time, thereby enabling greater cross-checking of evidence, estimates must still be regarded as having a margin of error. Eyewitness evidence for the pre-Spanish population of the Philippines often consists of passing comments on the numbers of people living in particular islands or villages. Such estimates often reflected the course of exploration and therefore 38 Part I Introduction did not take account of populations off the expeditionary track, or it included best guesses at the numbers living there. In about 1567 Legazpi reported that the Spanish had only explored inland regions that were accessible by water because there were too few Spaniards and they lacked horses.3 This partial knowledge was reflected in the distribution of the first encomiendas, where individual communities were often not specified but were defined by river valleys or described as being “en los tingues” or in the mountains. Even toward the end of the sixteenth century large areas had still not been explored and significant numbers remained outside Spanish control and were not paying tribute.4 For some interior regions of Luzon, this remained true into the nineteenth century. Even where early numerical estimates exist there are significant difficulties in assessing their validity. Early eyewitness accounts have often been judged as unreliable and exaggerated.5 It is suggested by some scholars that early observers inflated populations in order to magnify their achievements and obtain privileges from the Crown such as honorific titles and encomiendas. They might also have exaggerated numbers to stimulate the Crown to take some required action, such as sending more missionaries or military reinforcements, or, in the context of rapid depopulation, to condemn the activities of certain individuals. Other reasoning claims that in the early colonial period, people were not experienced in visualizing large numbers and lacked statistical sophistication. This claim may be overgeneralized, for while soldiers in the heat of battle might not be good judges of the numbers involved, Spanish administrative accounts show they were clearly capable of handling complex numerical data.6 In some cases the Spanish estimates might be based on native testimony, but the latter would have been no less subjective. Native witnesses might exaggerate or minimize populations according to context. They might inflate numbers to impress Spaniards that conquest would be difficult or depress them to avoid being enrolled as tribute payers. We should not be surprised at such manipulation of numbers, for it has occurred throughout history. To dismiss all early estimates as exaggerated would, as Woodrow Borah notes, imply some sort of conspiracy.7 Some figures are undoubtedly more reliable than others, but it is...

Share