As one of many handbooks published by Oxford University Press to provide valuable reference material for scholars and libraries, this volume is an impressive undertaking. It consists of 49 articles that cover the breadth of Aztec culture from a variety of perspectives. Overwhelmingly, the authors of these articles are archeologists and anthropologists. But experts from related fields, such as Anthony Aveni, an archeo-astronomer, also provide some important contributions. As with any undertaking this size, the results are uneven. Some articles will remain definitive as a synthesis of research as of this time. Others are not well written, confusing, and do not move scholarship forward.
The editors provide a solid introduction and tackle the issue of the term ‘Aztec’ up front. Nonetheless, after discussing the difficulties, they note that in the volume they have chosen to use the term Aztec, “because today it is widely recognized by both scholars and the international public” (3). Nonetheless, the authors of the various articles call these people the Mexica, Tenochca, Nahua, or Aztec, as they each seem to feel is best in their particular context. Possibly related to this, there is also little consistency in how various Nahuatl words are written. In the pages of the volume and the index, one can find both “tlahtoani” and “tlatoani” as the word for ruler.
The book is divided into seven parts, one of which is further subdivided into three sections. These parts look at the major topics confronting scholars, such as archeology, historical change, the landscape and places, economic and social relations, provinces, religion, and life after the conquest. It is impressive that the handbook does not merely focus on the preconquest period but has a series of five articles on life after the conquest. Likewise, the focus is not uniquely on the Aztecs (Mexica). The book includes essays that look at neighbors, both friends and foes, such as the Mixteca, the altepeme of Cholula and Tlaxcallan, and the Purépecha. Each article has its own bibliography. This is helpful to scholars who wish to probe more deeply into that specific topic.
As noted, well-regarded scholars, such as Anthony Aveni, provide insightful and cogent essays. Elizabeth Boone contributes an excellent piece on preconquest painted books. While it is short, it is a concise and useful essay, with a very good bibliography. José Luis de Rojas provides a small but interesting piece on Tenochtitlan. Indeed, some of the essays are exceedingly brief. The essay on Tlaxcallan has only seven pages of text; also very short is William Barnes's piece on “Aztec Art, Time, and Cosmovisón.” Perhaps half the pieces are only ten to 12 pages long, including two or more pages of bibliography. Even though we all understand the constraints of page and word limits, some of the essays are so brief as to actually undermine their usability. It might have been better to sacrifice some breadth of coverage for slightly more in-depth articles on key topics.
Among the most important essays, one should include the chapter on state ritual and religion. Written by Alfredo López Austin and Leonardo López Luján, it is a distillation of much important research from both of these noted scholars and from the Templo Mayor Project. Caroline Dodds Pennock's essay on gender and life cycles, along with López Austin's piece on the human body, are excellent contributions.
It is difficult to comment on a work that is this large and this encompassing. It is an important contribution and will find its place on many scholars’ bookshelves. However, the editors missed an opportunity to establish a watershed in Mexica studies. A slightly firmer hand by the editors could have made for a smoother work. Discrepancies in spelling are confusing. For better or worse, they missed an opportunity to establish a standard that others could follow. Obviously while a majority of scholars agree on certain orthographies and terms, there is no broad consensus. Nonetheless, Nichols and Rodríguez-Alegría could have moved the discussions forward by endorsing one orthography and one set of terms. This minor quibble really does not detract from what is massive undertaking, both well conceived and executed. It is a work that will be used by countless scholars and members of the public.
