Book Review "The Great Temple of Tenochtitlan" by J. Broda, D. Carrasco, and E. Matos Moctezuma. 184 pages. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987. "The Aztec Empire: The Toltec Resurgence" by N. Davies. 341 pages. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1987. "The Aztec Kings" by S. Gillespie. 274 pages. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1989. "Aztec Warfare" by R. Hassig. 404 pages. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1988. "The Aztecs" by E. Matos Moctezuma, trans. by A. Ellis. 239 pages. New York: Rizzoli International, 1989. "The Great Temple of the Aztecs" by E. Matos Moctezuma, trans. by D. Heyden. 192 pages. London: Thames and Hudson (distributed by W.W. Norton), 1988. by: Wendy Ashmore Department of Anthropology Rutgers University in: "Archaeology" (July/August 1990, pp. 70-74) Recent decades have seen many important developments in the study of ancient Mesoamerica--accelerating decipherment of Maya hieroglyphs, excavation of the greatest single architectural monument of the Aztecs, and radical reinterpretations of the rise and fall of civilizations in the region. Surely the most exciting recent event in Aztec archaeology has been excavation of the Templo Mayor, or Great Temple, of Tenochtitlan. The temple was the symbolic center of the Aztec capital and of their universe. Precisely because of its impor- tance, the Spanish razed what they could and buried the rest under the new colonial capital. The temple's ruins remained lost until 1978, when electrical workers chanced upon a magnificent sculpture that had been part of the temple complex. The dis- covery spawned immediate archaeological investigations by the Mexican government's Templo Mayor project, and these continued through 1982. Two books with the Templo Mayor discoveries as a theme are "The Great Temple of the Aztecs", by project director Eduardo Matos Moctezuma, and "The Great Temple of Tenochtitlan", by Matos, Johanna Broda, and David Carrasco. Both are well written and focus on defining the role of the temple in Aztec life. The temple was the architectural pivot of Tenochtitlan, considered by the Aztecs to be the navel of the universe, both an axis mundi and an imago mundi. First constructed at the founding of Tenochtitlan in the fourteenth century A.D., six major re- buildings over the next two centuries encased older versions of the temple in the construction mass of succeeding incarnations. Human sacrifices and other offerings were made at each rebuild- ing, as well as on other occasions. More than 80 offering deposits were discovered during the excavations. The nature of the offerings, brought from far-flung regions of the growing empire, as well as the identities of the gods to whom they were offered, together mark for Matos, Broda, and Carrasco the inte- grative force of the temple. The carved stone, pottery, shell, and other materials were brought from many and distant parts of the Aztec empire, and their interment at the temple symbolized the incorporation of the regions themselves into the heart of Aztec civilization. The two gods to whom the offerings were made, Tlaloc and Huitzilopochtli, together encompass the natural and social universe of the Aztec empire. While Tlaloc was a god of earth and rain, Huitzilopochtli stood for the sun and the sky. Tlaloc marked the time of rains; Huitzilopochtli scorched the earth, with sun and war, in the dry months. Tlaloc was an ancient deity in Mesoamerica, long recognized by peoples of many regions before the Aztecs forged for their insatiable war god, Huitzilopochtli, an imposing place in the pantheon. The two deities thus complemented one another in many ways. The twin shrines together marked the geographic, ritual, and symbolic heart of the universe, uniting old and new, center and periphery, in the sacred artificial mountain looming over the Aztec capital. Matos's book, written for a general audience, provides an overview of Aztec life and the development of the empire, as well as a history of excavations in and around the Templo Mayor. The Broda, Carrasco, and Matos volume is more technical, intended for audiences already knowledgeable about Aztec civilization. Each author presents his or her own perspective in a separate essay. Archaeologist Matos again offers a summary of fieldwork and finds. In his interpretation, the material remains are the tangible link between the temple sacrifices and festivals and the essential economic bases of Aztec life--with water and agri- culture represented in the festivals and sacrifices to Tlaloc, and war and tribute in those of Huitzilopochtli. Ethnohistorian Broda emphasizes the Templo Mayor as ritual space, its form constituting the quintessential sacred mountain and thereby symbolizing the whole earth itself. She considers the cached offerings to the earth, and distinguishes them from the more specifically Aztec state rituals and war-related sacrifices carried out in the temple precinct. In a similar vein, historian of religion Carrasco argues that the myths embodied in the temple and its ritual symbolized the relationships between the Aztecs (center) and their neighbors (periphery). Although the relation- ships were fundamentally antagonistic, with conquest and sacrifice of the periphery inevitable by the center, they none- theless served to keep the world intact in space and time. The Spanish conquest changed all that, attacking both the Templo Mayor and the ideas and relationships for which it stood. In "The Aztec Kings", Susan Gillespie likewise alludes to the Spanish conquest and its place in the Aztec world, but from a very different perspective. Her approach is neither archaeology nor ethnohistory, but a structural analysis of colonial docu- ments, especially as they "record" the genealogy of the Aztec rulers. Her position is that the collective record should be viewed less as "history" in a factual sense than as "sacred history," created jointly by native and Spanish chroniclers, to provide a background for and explanation of the tumultuous events of their times. While other analysts have decried the inconsis- tencies of the colonial documents in their king lists and other "historical" matters, Gillespie argues persuasively that super- ficially incompatible histories provide insights rather than obfuscation. Building on the work of van Zantwijk and others, she out- lines the genealogy as divisible into three sequential sets of Aztec kings. Gillespie argues that certain kings in these sequences were "recycled." Her telling discussion of two kings named Motecuhzoma (called Moctezuma or Montezuma by many) illustrates the repetitive nature of roles played by the kings in the three sets or cycles found in the genealogy. The younger was ruler at the arrival of the Spanish, at a critical juncture in Aztec history. The elder ruled at an earlier boundary between two cycles and thus would seem to provide a precedent for the role of his later namesake. Gillespie contends, however, that the reverse was true, that characteristics were later attributed to the early Motecuhzoma to make him more like the younger. Indeed, the author suggests that "Motecuhzoma" was probably a title conferred retrospectively on the earlier king as he came to be viewed as equivalent in an earlier cycle to the later king. The role of women was crucial in transmitting and legitimizing royal authority, particularly at the junctures between cycles, where continuity was most at risk. Gillespie argues that the women referred to in these cases are in fact a single woman and that "inconsistencies" in references to this woman as wife and/or sister and/or mother of a given king reflect the equivalence of these roles. Furthermore, she shows that the same relationships are represented in the supernatural realm; these women are goddesses as well. Gillespie demonstrates that the fully elaborated "aztec sacred history" grew through time, even giving rise to the post- conquest creation of a Toltec sacred history--and the story of Topiltzin Quetzalcoatl--both to give greater precedent to the Aztec cycling and to mold a place for Cortes, as the returning Quetzalcoatl. In her view, Cortes and the Spanish represented the beginning of a new cycle, one the Aztecs could then argue would end with another boundary, another Motecuhzoma, and the Aztec ascendance anew. In this regard, it seems no small irony that a man named Matos Moctezuma should have been responsible for the reemergence to visible prominence of the Templo Mayor, that central icon of Aztec power and prosperity. In "The Aztec Empire", Nigel Davies likewise recounts the series of Aztec rulers, and speaks of the importance of a native concept of cyclical history in the growth of Aztec power. Davies, however, takes a more traditional view of the historical potential of available documents. This is an elegantly written book, a pleasure to read. It is a scholarly treatise, but its presentation makes it accessible to a fairly broad readership. As the subtitle ("The Toltec Resurgence") suggests, it is the completing volume in a trilogy on the Toltec, and some allusions to periods, people, and places, along with a scarcity of maps presume familiarity with either the companion volumes or some other works on the Aztec themselves (including Davies's own "The Aztecs: A History", reissued in 1980). Davies's goal is a review of the events and developments of Aztec history, and a consideration of the causes for the growth of Aztec imperialism. He suggests many situation-specific factors were likely important to Aztec success, among them ideal location for defense and provisioning, chance, sheer lust for power, craving for riches, religious zeal, and a sense of destiny--the latter including a crafted inheritance of the Toltec mantle of authority. More humanist than social scientist, Davies is concerned less with assigning the Aztecs to a general model for the birth and expansion of empires, and more with a clear, detailed, and convincing explication of what transpired in the Aztec case. "Aztec Warfare", by Ross Hassig, is similar to Davies's book in its attitude toward the documentary record, but it s domain differs. To the Aztecs, Hassig says, "war was the empire." His premise is that this empire was hegemonic (held together by perceived power) rather than territorial (held together by real force). Part one summarizes details of warfare in Aztec life-- from strategy and customary conduct, to arms and armor, to the military life cycle for both an individual and a battle. In part two, documentary evidence on battles in recounted, with many helpful maps, according to individual reigns. It is a fascinat- ing and exhaustive account, and offers interesting comparisons with Davies's and others' portrayals of war-related topics. For example, Hassig and Davies have somewhat different views on the feasibility and actual frequency of taking captives--tradition- ally considered crucial to an Aztec warrior's achievement of prestige, through supplying captives for sacrifice. Hassig seems less dubious than does Davies of the generalized difficulties in handling and transporting captives in and after a battle, but admits captive taking was largely precluded in battles at too great a distance from the valley of Mexico. All in all, this is a valuable book, though the casual reader will likely find it tough going because of its format and vocabulary. The final Aztec volume considered here requires no such caution. "The Aztecs" is a lavishly illustrated book for a general audience, characteristic of the Rizzoli series as a whole. Indeed, roughly half of this book is full-page illustra- tions, and in a few cases--like the two-page close-up of the monumental stairs at Tlatelolco--they are almost overwhelming visually. The author of this book is Eduardo Matos Moctezuma, and that fact invites comparison with the Templo Mayor volume described earlier. The texts are similar, which is neither surprising nor a problem; the differences are largely a matter of emphasis, with the Templo Mayor receiving somewhat less narrative attention in the Rizzoli volume. Otherwise, the topics treated are broadly similar, and many of the illustrations the same. I found the Thames and Hudson volume more satisfying, for several reasons including the translator's use of English and of archaeological terms. But either is a good general introduction to the Aztecs. ASHMORE1.ART